Magox

Because my father perceives him to be an isolationist, much like Rand's father. Foreign policy matters to my father and he believes interventionism is a key role for the U.S He's also a very traditional GOP voter, he's not a hard line right winger, doesn't like the thought of what he perceives to be extreme ideas such as abolishing the IRS or VA. He doesn't like the idea of legalizing marijuana. In his view, Rand is too far out there for his taste.

Mika is known to hugely be a women's rights activist, many times irrationally so. Having said that, Mika has been a persistent critic of Hillary and DEFINITELY is no fan of hers. At all!!

Rand could possibly be able to get a lot of new voters that wouldn't normally vote GOP. But, and it's a big but, many of the hawkish traditional GOP voters would sit it out. My father who was in the military wouldn't even consider voting for him, even if that means not voting at all. And I know there are many others that feel the same way. But it would be entertaining seeing him run against Hillary, he'd be to the left of her on all sorts of issues, such as drug legalization, the relationship between banks and politicians and foreign policy. He'd have her tied up in all sorts of knotts, Hillary would basically have to brandish her hawkish bonafides, which of course could alienate many younger voters.

Can you provide a link to that? Even though I've already provided you links stating the contrary. Here is what Stephen Goss says. More from Stephen Goss: And no, it's not by two years. I already provided you the links from the actuaries of S.S stating otherwise. Unless you provide something credible and non partisan, then it's all pure speculation from your point of view. Here is what S.S actuaries say:

That goes against the analysis performed by the Social Security actuaries. The problem is and was that all those births that occurred after WW II, well those chickens are coming home to roost. A stagnating population coupled with a booming aging population is a problem with the way our S.S system works. S.S has always relied on future generations to pay for those that are collecting benefits. Am I advocating that the status quo is sustainable over the long haul? No, but that wasn't what we were talking about. What we are talking about is adding more people to the pot to add revenues to the system. Hence, immigration being a positive for S.S (and no, not just for the short-term, but for the long-term) Also, the point that you made that the overwhelming majority of people are going to be receiving more in benefits than what they pay in, also misses the mark. First off, S.S was designed to pay out more than it received. The reason why it was created was to serve as a safety net, not as a means for the government to profit. In any case, check it Again, the proposed legislation is a net positive for S.S and it's solvency. It's not the panacea but it is part of the solution. Couple that with mean's testing on the most wealthy and extending the age by a couple years to 67, and voilaaaa, problem solved.

Increased immigration as the proposals that have been laid out would help. The average age of the immigrants that would fall under the proposed legislation is around 40. Which means they would be paying into the pot for a number of years before they could draw into it. Also, and not withstanding is that the proposal laid out would compel these individuals to pay into S.S for a minimum of 10 years before they could draw funds from retirement funds. You can read about it here That is a bit lengthy, you can also read a more brief synopsis right here. Gator may be wrong about a lot of things, but not on this issue, not if he's talking about the proposed immigration legislation that was passed by the Senate.

I always did like the white meat.

You heard it on the radio? Well, that settles that.

Anyone can spin numbers and pontificate about the wrongs of capitalism from the perches of their comfy offices. He just seems to have a more dark fatalistic view of things and he's able to channel the inner anti capitalistic sentiment amongst some liberals. So what are his solutions? Global wealth tax? Could you just imagine a global and unaccountable IRS run by some socialistic French nitwit? His solutions are nothing more than the same old tired wealth distribution schemes that many others have suggested just that it's a different variation on a more global scale. The idea of taking away from some to lift others as a means to solve the widening wealth disparity gap is laughable. Would it decrease the gap? Probably, but it would also undoubtedly come at the expense of an even slower over all economy with less economic output. Globalization and technology are the main culprits of this villainous tale. The solution is more a matter of adaptation to this reality. And to be honest, the greatest transfer of wealth hasn't so much been coming from the middle class to the uber rich but more so of the developed nations to the emerging markets. Globalization may very well have had a negative impact on the US/European industry worker, but it has played a positive force not only for the US consumer but to the factory worker overseas (china, india, etc). Globalization and technology aren't going to recede, it's just a matter of reforms and adapting to the inevitable.

I have my ideas, but the point I'm making is that however you deal with this issue, that US policy on Iran should be based off of that premise.

The crux of it all is simple, the Iranians want to build a nuclear weapon. U.S policy towards Iran should be based on that assumption. Period!

Success!!

Most of the jobs that are created are lower-skilled jobs and that there is still slack in the economy.

So Muslim fundamentalists share some of the same values as Christian fundamentalists?

What a load of crap.

Yes

I'm personally against anyone who discriminates anyone on matters of religion, race and sexual orientation. Having said that, if a company chooses to discriminate, that's on them. And as a result of their actions there will be counter reactions from the public, and with the way social media works the word will get out and the free market will flush out anything that particular region doesn't tolerate. This puts the power in the people's hands, as it should be in many instances. This would be a perfect example of why more libertarian principles should be adopted into our society. Not saying that we should be the wild wild west, but there are areas where we can implement some of these philosophies to our economy.

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