Magox

This is actually against my libertarian side of me and I know is something that some of the conservatives are also opposed to but I think it's perfectly reasonable to limit the food/drink choices available from EBT. I don't believe cookies, chips, sodas and energy drinks should be part of the menu of choices provided by the government. Many of the very same individuals who are receiving these benefits are also on Medicaid, and we know for a fact that the consumption of cookies, chips and sodas increase the odds of gaining weight and adverse health conditions such as heart disease, which is one of the largest contributing causes to skyrocketing healthcare costs. It's one thing if you choose what you'd like with your own money, but to buy products that not only deteriorate your own health which really isn't my concern as much as the burden it puts on the state/government medicaid funded budget is something that I believe is reasonable to be vigilant about. In regards to drug testing people on EBT. Well, I believe if you have someone who is habitually on EBT, I think it's perfectly reasonable to require them to periodic unannounced drug testing. It provides incentive to be less unproductive. I have no problem with that.

First thing I do in the morning around 5 am is see what WAPO and Politico are serving up. Watch Morning Joe at 6 am, very influential show that often sets the agenda for the day. Great interviews and guests, love the round table sort of discussions. Throughout the day I check into Politico, Real Clear Politics, The Hill, WSJ and browse to see if anything interesting is on Drudge. 6 pm I like to check out Bret Baer's show, specially for the round table. Bar none, the best round table in any of the news networks or anywhere, mainly because of Krauthammer. There isn't a political analyst that can match his mind. I'll sometimes catch Megyn Kelly's show, chick is as quick as a whip. Weekends I like to check out the Sunday Talk shows if I'm not doing stuff with the family.

Not sure I'd characterize next year as being in "solid shape". After looking through the numbers and who we have to re-sign, there are either going to have to be some tough choices meaning we may have to lose a key contributor or some very creative restructuring of existing contracts in order to just retain our own players. And forget about adding any significant new FA's, just not gonna happen, not if we retain all the key players.

SUCCESS!!!

If I had to characterize those two outlets, Politico is fairly center, center left. And the Hill center, center right. All the outlets, even the liberal ones want to see the Queen get challenged. It makes for a better story.

Cheap trick? Hardly

In other words you don't want to accept the findings. Got it!

Hillary is sending out her attack dogs, Jennifer kooky Granholm had this warning for O'Malley: In other words, don't challenge the Queen, it's her right to be at the throne. And if you play nice, we'll hook you up with a nice cushy position.

Read up It's clear.

I did, so i guess you didn't like the findings. Too bad, it is what it is.

We get it, she's dishonest.

Not sure, but there is this: And there is this as well:

She's definitely not a good campaigner. She's ornery much like McCain, bitter, fake and secretive. If the RNC was smart (which is a big if), they'd spend a **** load of negative attack ads in the cities and suburbs, in other words the Democratic Strong holds and they should attack her from the left. Depress that turnout. Her ties to wall street, big speaking fee's, how she was/is a self-described person with financial struggles, warhawk etc etc. There is so much material to work with.

After taking a good luck of who we have to re-sign next year, it's already going to be challenging as it is to keep all the players that contribute positively to this team. I just don't see how we can take on another pretty large contract. I suppose there is a way to restructure his current deal, but we are reaching that critical point of losing out on some of our valued players that are already on this roster if we keep adding more pricey contracts.

The difference between the two laws is that the federal law applies to individuals and that the Indiana law explicitly broadens it to corporations and companies. That is a major distinction. The reason why the law was passed was to cater to the religious right, it served no substantive purpose. The only thing that it will manage to accomplish is alienate the youth vote. Bad politics and the explanation that Pence attempted this week on ABC Sunday's show was weak. He needs to do better in his explanations than this past Sunday.

I wouldn't consider Drudge far right, yes his anti "amnesty" passions are those on the further end of the right spectrum but other than that, he's down the middle/right. He supported Mitt, nuff said. In regards to O'malley, it's pretty clear, he's trying to chip away at Hillary by propping up others.

The more and more I see what's happening in the middle east, the more that my thoughts on the region are evolving. Our mission in the middle east should be to protect our own direct interests, period. Help prop up governments that support us, take out terrorists who are a direct threat to us and do everything in your power to stop a nuclear arms race in a region dominated by religious sociopaths. No more nation building or taking out of dictators. If you take out a brutal dictator, vacuums get filled by these nutballs. Unless you are prepared to invest hundreds of billions of dollars, risk the lives of American troops and dedicate decades of time and effort to stabilize the country, then stay the F*ck out. And with the way our political system is set up, we can't ever make that guarantee. The American public's emotions sways like a leaf in the wind. One year they believe we should be a bunch of interventionists, politicians run on that mantle and we elect them in. The politician follows through on the policy that he was elected on and then we intervene. Once the public becomes war weary, which they always do, then the pressure is on to withdraw, a new politician runs on withdrawing and scaling back US interventionism and voilaaa, he gets elected and withdraws and then of course chaos breaks loose creates vacuums and then they get filled. This is going to continue to be a rinse and repeat scenario if things don't change. And to be honest, it's not going to be politicians who change this mentality it has to come from the U.S electorate. Considering that over half our society is more interested in Social media and pop culture than substantive matters, well......Good luck with that.

Drudge doesn't like Jeb. He's a huge opponent of anything resembling in his view as "amnesty". Funny, it was only a year ago Scott Walker was also agreeing that there should be a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, Jeb stuck to his guns and didn't waffle under the pressure of the right wing, Walker did.

Success!!!

Yes, yes it is

Considering that our foreign policy in Yemen is a "success", I have the fullest confidence in this administrations ability to forge a fair and equitable Nuclear deal with Iran.

I rarely agree with you but this made me chuckle.

If we move Cordy to Guard, say bye bye to the possibility of him returning.

Could it be any phonier?

Once again, Obama and co. are getting schooled on the world stage.