Magox

I would say as designed, they may work a little in changing smoking behaviour, but in regards to how that money is spent, well that's why I said some sort of a "lock box", where that money doesn't go towards gov spending programs, but strictly towards wellness programs and promotions of healthier living.

That's because you frequent bars where dudes strictly eat lentils and study journalism.

That's actually a good idea. Thanks

I didn't say it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that it is natural instinct for MOST people to go after things they believe they can achieve easier. A good big guy will usually beat a good smaller guy, most people in bars aren't good fighters, alot of big guys arent that great of fighters either, but usually fights are won before they even start, simply because of fear, big guys usually intimidate smaller guys. Big guys in more cases than not feel as if they can intimidate people more so than smaller guys, so when you get people drinking, and you get superiority complexes that are multiplied with alcoholic machismo you will see in more cases big guys picking on smaller guys than the other way around. That's just how it is.

This is kinda funny. Obviously they shouldnt be doing that But I absolutely do agree with the idea of restricting what kind of foods can be bought with Government welfare money. I also am for promoting healthy eating in schools and only providing healthy foods, and cut down significantly the fat and sugars. I also believe taxing sugars and putting that money in a "lockbox" of sorts and applying that money towards preventative care and promotions of exercise and healthier eating.

I disagree with the Bar part. As an ex owner of a night club that averaged over 500 people a night on the weekends and a billiards bar, working 6 nights a week over a 6 year period, You're wrong. Big guys in most circumstances picked on guys that they believed they could take down, why? Because in their mind they knew they could.

I'm not a pro war sort of dude at all, and I know I'm oversimplifying things here, but common sense tells me that if someone is gonna pick a fight, they usually will pick the smaller dude.

The oil refinery mergers played almost no role in the increase of the price of oil. What caused the price of oil to increase during his term were a few main factors, one the economy in the US domestically speaking was in a bubble, so demand was at all time highs. While we were in that bubble demand period there were tons of Gas guzzling vehicles that our automakers were creating. Also, the Global economy was in full swing, Europe was experiencing it's biggest boom period in over 30 years and China was growing at ridiculous 11% GDP growth rates. A US dollar that was plummetting hitting all time lows. There was also a shortage of rigs and tankers, more so than there is today at that time period. Not to mention all he instability in the Middle East. Then you throw in devastating Hurricanes that hit the heart of our domestic deep sea drilling and refineries and a surge in demand because of the Chinese Olympics that diverted oil shipments from the US and VOILAAAAAAAA!!!!! High prices.

And yes, healthcare costs were gonna go up regardless, but the president said his healthcare bill would bend the cost curve, did he not? well he was right, but it bent it to the upside. Shouldn't he be held accountable for his failed promises? But lets just say his policies had nothing to do with that, just for the sake of argument, approximately half the people who took that poll citied regulations as reasons for not hiring. Remember when you and I had this conversation, I cited SPECIFIC examples of companies and industries that made these claims and you scoffed at that suggestion. Now you have a poll taken by SMALL BUSINESS owners that are saying the same thing. I guess you'll ignore that too right? Oh, and are you saying Apple hitting $600 = US having a strong and vibrant DOMESTIC economy? Is that what you are trying to say? Really??? http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/18Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html Yeah and I guess the "BOOM"ing economy had more to do with that then their ability to innovate and maximize on a growing consumer global market.

Thats partially true, but even more so globally. The current price of oil has very very little to do with Obama, the only real tangible difference short-term that he has had an impact with oil is some of the lost production and rigs from the moratoria he imposed earlier, which max only has contributed about $2-3 to the current price of oil. Having said, his long term polices if continued will have a larger effect on oil prices, keystone pipeline if not followed through will have an impact, not allowing more drilling for oil in certain areas will as well. But Dave, I'm sure that when prices were rising under Bush, I would bet my left nut that you were one of those that said that Bush and Cheney are rewarding their "oil buddies" with those higher prices of oil. At least I'm objective enough to point out that this is a strawman argument, blaming the president on CURRENT oil prices. But, since the other side did it, if I were a political operative I would impose the same tactics, simply because there are enough uninformed people to come to that same conclusion. Also in regards to the economy, I'm glad you brought that up. This was a poll conducted by that very partisan polling center, Gallup. Yep, the economy is as you put it "BOOM"ing now, with 85% of small businesses ("the engine of America") not looking to hire. Sort of puts things into perspective with that phony 8.3% unemployment rate, kinda reflects there are major fractures in our labor force, and half of those businesses point to Obamas regulations and healthcare costs that the president said he would be able to lower. But I"m sure you will just say "na na na na, I can't hear you, they are all just whiny partisans, na na na na, I don't hear you" Funny how this sort of ties into the Thiel conversation. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72892.html#ixzz1mSflE9n8

You have a reading comprehension problem. Nowhere in the article did this particular person infer that Thiel was suggesting that people just drop out of school willy nilly as the poster in that comments section did. This dude disagrees with the basic premise of people dropping out of school and chasing after their dreams. That's fine, thats an honest argument to have, one is an inside the box thinker the other is an outside the box one. I'm Sorry that you have to try to find an article to understand context from people within a "comments" section. Here, I have a suggestion, how about just reading the comment, then reading the thiel article and try deciphering on your own. Anyone who has the capacity to comprehend things would be able to conclude that Thiel was referring to people who already have big ideas or are willing to go after big things. Even in the article that you provided to help form your thought even addressed what he perceived to be flawed thinking, but nowhere was it suggested that THiel was advocating for people just to drop out of school simply because dropping out of school would somehow magically make you into a millionaire.

DC Tom and I spoke about this at length well before you began posting, without a doubt the U.S has the best bankrupcy courts in the world, a managed bankrupcy would of yielded similar results, except with one little difference, it wouldn't of cost the US taxpayer a dime. I'm glad he came out with a full throated defense, but in any case, it should be interesting to watch what happens in Michigan. Either way Obama will win in Michigan, Detroit is Obama Koolaid country.

Thank you for providing that link to make my point. Totally taken out of context, he wasn't just saying " theil just gave a lecture at harvard that advised it's students to drop out and start a business .because, you know, he and a few other zillionaires were successful at it. not sure i trust his judgement". He wasn't referring for people in general to drop out

Fixed

Yeah, I'm sure he was just telling people to just drop out of school. What is more likely than not from what you gathered from the "comments" section was someone who took what Thiel said out of context. Also in regards to regulations, things don't have to be black or white, it's not as if all regulations are bad. Some things need to be regulated, but there is a difference between good common sense regulations, and others that are overreactions to circumstances that form punitive populist nonsensical regulations. It is FACT that regulations can Stymie growth. What Thiel is talking about is overregulation, basically he wants to go in a direction where regulations aren't a burden, and as time passes and as we move more and more to the left, regulations are expanding.

yep, right after Jeb Bush.

As of right now they would have to pay a penalty.

The whole thing is embarrassing, not only did he not press him on the issue of the 50 votes, but why hasn't ANYONE brought up this video I mean, you know how Gregory likes to catch people with gotcha questions, specially those who hold conservative values, that would of been the ultimate gotcha. Nope, he'd rather ask Santorum about how he has ran a strictly social conservative campaign (which is an exaggeration) and about his wife and the way he interpreted in Santorums book; his wife's role at home. Which btw, I thought he answered both of them really well. I suppose this sort of questioning works for those who obsess over his "rooster in the ass" sweater/vest.

Talk about embarrassing Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/14/obama-chief-of-staff-and-former-budget-director-misleads-voters-to-blame-gop-for-budget-debacle/#ixzz1mNkQpiUS

Yeah, but in a VERY VERY behind the scenes sort of way. Allowing air space freedoms, some logistical support and intel would probably be as far as it went.

If there has been anything that Romney says that I believe to be in all earnest to be true is that there is a fight for AMerica's soul. From a social stand point, do we continue to go down the path of a democratic sort of socialism or do we at least begin to halt the lurch to the left? Honestly, I believe we will continue to move to the left. Let's face it, when you have an electorate that isn't all that engaged, it is much easier to appeal to the public from a strawman POV which is "Is it fair that Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than you?" "You don't believe women should have coverage for contraceptives?" "Why do you want to cut Medicare for seniors?" "Don't you want us to continue to fund more programs for Education?" "Why do you want to fire more firefighters, police officers and teachers?" "Shouldn't everyone have the RIGHT to free healthcare?" "Don't teachers deserve great pensions?" "Shouldn't CEO's of companies make less than what they are now?" "Why do you want there to be more pollution?" "Wouldn't you rather have our economy powered by solar and wind energy over Oil?" I could go on and on, this is what you are up against. To the average person who doesn't look into the cost, the lack of effeciency and feasibility of these ideals, it's a tough argument to win. Why? Because they prey on the empathetic emotions of people. If people were armed with more facts, and more importantly had the desire to look into these thing, most reasonabe people would conclude this is not the path towards economic viability.

Tensions are definitely rising. The question boils down to this, Will the Iranians backdown from their uranium enrichment goals? If not, they will get bombed. Pretty much as simple as that.

I agree with you on a good bit of things, but from my perspective, you've fallen into the trap of what the left wants the issue to be, which is a social issue. From what I've seen, the right has SO FAR responded correctly, which is that they've made it about governments penchant for overreaching. That's what the issue has been, not about social issues. Get yourself out of that trap Uconn.

So, naturally I've been reading virtually everyone's take on the Presidents errrrr budget proposal, and the coverage for the most part has been fair. Dana Millbanks opinion piece, who is what I would consider to be a centrist Democrat has this to offer: Obama's budget games The White House’s budget for fiscal 2013 begins with a broken promise, adds some phony policy assumptions, throws in a few rosy forecasts and omits all kinds of painful decisions. Even then, the proposal would add $1 trillion more to the national debt than Obama contemplated a few months ago — and it is a non-starter on Capitol Hill, where even Senate Democrats have no plans to take it up. It is, in other words, exactly what it was supposed to be: a campaign document. The opposition picked up Sperling’s metaphor and ran with it. “He has punted again,” said Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the House Budget Committee chairman. Actually, it was more of a kickoff, and Ryan opted to receive: He’ll introduce his own budget in the coming weeks, and it is likely to have large tax cuts for the wealthy and deep cuts to entitlement programs — giving Obama exactly the foil he wants for the fall campaign. But as a budget writer, Obama whiffed. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, although offering a few kind words for the president’s proposal, said the plan “would barely stabilize the debt — and at too high a level.” Then there is ABC's Jake Tappers revisit of Obama's failed promise Obama's Broken Deficit Promise USA TODAY's Editorial piece: Obama's budget plan leaves debt bomb ticking WSJ's take : Obamas amazing budget And then there's the NY Times take of the presidents budget: The Presidents Responsible 2013 budget Well there you have it, we know who's shilling for who All in all, the coverage was accurate. I could of posted the typical right and left wing views, but decided to post the "acceptable" large news outlets. For me, the budget is what the presidency is mainly about, it details a long view of how to stimulate the economy and address our spending and revenue issues while hopefully addressing our entitlement programs. The president does address revenues, even though taxing the "rich" by all reasonable economists view doesn't even come close to solving the revenue issues and is more political than anything else. I'm a substance person, and any rational person knows that the taxing the rich dogma is just that, a political dogma and NOTHING else. In regard to cutting spending. Sorry, but the wars ending doesn't and should't count, and that comes from the bipartisan Policy center. And when it comes to addressing Entitlements. Ok.... Nada

I'm actually a big fan of Niall Ferguson.