KevinG

Hold the phone there Doctor B. I do not throw the term racist bigot out willy nilly, but it is important to point out when it occurs. I did not call the GOP racist bigots because I disagree with them. I called them racist bigots for their reasoning in opposing the Syrian refugees. That is an important distinction. I mentioned that I agree with you and we should keep our country safe. And it is the right and duty of a politician and an Americans to question the actions of our government if we feel they are not doing its job. But as I mentioned before our current system is doing a pre

I have never mentioned that we should allow Syrian refugees en masse in this country (which by the rhetoric from the right would have you believe). There is a long and complicated process to gain refugee status and enter this country. I guess read this from Time which explains the process. http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/ A thing to note is that our current process works. Out of the 750K refugees that have been let into this country since 9/11 not one has been convicted of domestic terrorism. Also most of the current refugees are women and children. Look

So refugees. Seems to be a pretty big topic, lately. More political posturing by the right in using the tragedy in Paris to fuel the out and out racism of the party. These Governors who said they will deny these refugees have no legal authority do so, and in fact would be in direct violation of the law. And the current crop of GOP candidates are just spreading xenophobic and flat out racist rhetoric. You know I would never say all Republicans are racist, cause that is not true. There is racism in both parties. However, the current leadership of the party is undoubtedly racist and

Clearly when anchors of a major news organization or elected officials (or those who wish to be elected) cannot understand the distinction between a Religion and the actions of individuals, it makes it extremely hard for the rest of us.

Show your work.

Kinda the point of terrorism is to cause irrational terror and fear in people. Right after 9/11 there was the saying "if we don't do X then the terrorist have won." Simplistic and kinda stupid, but it does ring true. Who is to say you are more likely to be caught in the middle of a terrorist attack when you go to Spain next week, or if you go to the mall on Black Friday (which is a fear I have heard people talk about). Or heck even when you go to the local Starbucks, you are subject to a possible terror attack/mass shooting/riot/being hit by a bus etc. It is the life we live in. Don

Donald Trump doesn't agree: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/donald-trump-minimum-wage-215787 Nor Ben Carson: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/10/ben-carson/ben-carson-said-raising-minimum-wage-will-increase/ Rubio agrees but doesn't think we should raise it: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rubio-people-cant-live-minimum-wage-no-increase So apparently not.

I have not attacked Dr. Carson on his personal stories. Nor did I attack Clinton on her sniper story, Brian Williams on his helicopter, Bill O'Reilly on his war stories, and (not that was discussed here) Steve Rannazzisi on his 9/11 story. I have been pretty consistent when these stories appear, in truth I don't care too much. It can speak to the person's character, yes, but everyone has exaggerated their personal histories to seem more than they are. If you go back on my comments about Dr. Carson it was never about his personal stories, it was his demeanor and outlandish comments found fa

I can only assume those that went after the former secretary will chastise Dr. Carson with the same fervor and glee.

No fast and loose with actual verified history. And if you stand on a moral ground such as this: It should be noted.

Well Ben Carson unraveled pretty fast. http://www.wsj.com/article_email/ben-carsons-past-faces-deeper-questions-1446861864-lMyQjAxMTI1NTAxNzgwMTcxWj Not surprising his anecdotes are now being found as untrue, considering how fast an loose he plays with actual real verified history.

But some of his beliefs are horribly inconsistent with his chosen profession. It does not seem he is at all intellectually curious and he flatly refuses to accept things that are proven scientific fact. I honestly cannot figure this guy out.

My goodness, Ben Carson has gone off the rails. If there was a candidate such as him leading the Democratic party, I would be ashamed to be associated with them. With a lot of the politicians I understand the pandering, and making false statements to garner support. But it appears that Carson actually believes the stuff he says, (and I am not sure which is more dangerous). Take for example his facebook post on why he would make a good president, his outsider status. Most of it in IMHO is self aggrandizing stuff, but it has a nugget in there that sounds good, but is completely false.

Got my first Robo call of the 2016 election cycle. It was for Ben Carson, and jesus it about put me to sleep. Trump is right he is a low energy person. I can imagine his State of Union Addresses. Yikes. But beyond that Carson says some real crazy stuff. Not just things I disagree with politically, but some nutty things. How is this guy the leading GOP candidate?

Well he wouldn't be the first person in office to not know proper gun safety. Dick Cheney did shoot some dude in the face.

Or Joaquin. Man imagine the hijinks, twins as VP. I think there is a sitcom in there someplace.

It will be interesting how the two parties spin the candidates, especially if it is Rubio v Clinton. It is almost the reverse of 2008. A older politician with a huge political resume vs a young, energetic, minority senator, with little experience. In 2008 the Dems thought McCain's age was an issue and now it seems to be an issue with Clinton (as we have already from people on the board). Whereas the GOP made an issue of Obama's inexperience (and still do). Though the election is still a long way away, it seems the GOP has made a move to consolidate the debate process and try to give mo

I guess we learned last night who the real villain is, the Liberal Media. The are so obviously supporting Clinton. And hey did you see all of those gotcha questions they asked of the poor GOP hopefuls. Take question for example: Obviously out there to make Cruz look bad. Ask him a question of substance on his record. I am so glad, instead of answering he went after the question. Shows real leadership to attack the question rather than answer something that is tough.

Someone needs to take away whatever contracts and licenses they have for all sports. And they need to ban Joe Buck from everything. Also this happened: But beyond the horribleness of Fox the game was a great one. Human drama, inside the park home run, extra innings. Really good.

After the absolute disaster that was the Benghazi hearings yesterday, can we all just agree that it is a big waste of time and politically motivated. It sure did look that way to me. Clinton came off pretty good during the whole thing and the GOP looked petty and asked some pretty stupid questions. Take for example Mike Pompeo (R-Kan) line of questioning: Yeah ok, good job there Congressman.

Looks like McDreamy blue eyes is going to become Speaker of the House. Glad he is putting demands so he can see his family. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way and try to offer those protections to other working families.

Well that was depressing (as a Cubs fan), but honestly not unexpected. I just think the youth and inexperience of the Cubs caught up with them. They were unable to handle the pressure of the big game. The pitching was subpar and we all learned that Jake Arrieta is a human being, and maybe Lester is not worth all of that money. Also not to take away anything from the Mets. They pitched well, they got timely hits and their defense was outstanding. They always seemed to be in the right place at the right time. And what can be said about Murphy? That guy certainly came up big, 6 HR's in

But you also made the same crack about Clinton, which I have heard from others as well. Just seems hypocritical (not necessarily by you) but the right wing media. Unless there is an issue with a candidate's health, age should not be a factor.

But you still voted for him right? Here is my point, a huge concern is made about age and it is an easy thing to point to when saying someone is unfit for office. I know 90 year olds who are more vital and aware then some 50 year olds. The Democrats used McCain's age against him in 2008, and it was unfair. And the GOP said as much. Now that the presumptive nominee is older the GOP is using the same tactics, forgetting what happened 8 years ago. You brought up age and you started the conversation, to what end I don't know. Is age that much of a factor that you wouldn't for so

Sorry to ask you a hypothetical. Heaven forbid you actually speculate on something, in order to clarify your opinion. But you conveniently ignored the second part of my question, which is not hypothetical. John McCain was 71 when he ran for president in 2008. Which would have made him the oldest president. Did you have an issue with his age back then? Why now that there is a Democrat who would is in their late 60's is it an issue that you feel needs to be addressed?