KevinG

When I was looking for alarm clock apps, there was one that cost you a dollar everytime you hit snooze.

my phone wakes me up. It has a math problem challenge to turn it off, so it makes sure I am up.

You know, I really hate to bring up Cuba again, but I found this Op-Ed in the New York Times from October, which had spelled out the reasoning why we should begin normalizing relationships with Cuba. Which refutes the claim that the current Cuban regime has done nothing to change their ways in the last fifty years. Anyway, here is the op-ed. Interesting read, especially when you notice the date. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/opinion/sunday/end-the-us-embargo-on-cuba.html?_r=0

I have of yet, not heard a really good argument of why this is a bad idea. The way we treated Cuba for the past 50 years did nothing to change their policies and there was no indication that by continuing the same policy of isolating Cuba from the US was going to change anything. Especially when most of the rest of the world is just fine dealing with Cuba. Yes, the Cuban government has some deplorable human rights violations against its own people. But if that were a criteria for not having relations with a nation, there would be many other countries we would not do business with. But

It also should be noted that a majority of Americans and an overwhelming number of young Cuban exiles now support lifting of the embargo and normalizing relations with Cuba. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/17/371411659/polls-show-cuban-american-view-on-u-s-cuba-relations-is-nuanced

Well, there was a bunch of new stories from July of this year that there was plans to reopen a Soviet Era Spy base back in July. But from what I can tell this was a lot of chatter stemming from one news report and as of today the station remains closed. And I can't find any other credible news report that mentions any other plans of that nature. So I guess if this is a big concern, please do all of us a favor and provide evidence. Ugh, this again. I remember you saying the same thing when Putin invaded Ukraine, and sure whatever. But just because the Cold War is alive and well, doe

Russia, China, Cuba. Two of these three countries have nuclear missiles. Two of these three countries we have trade relationships with. I am baffled by this line of logic you are presenting.

Cuba pointed missiles at us in 1963, three years after the embargo started, so it is not like the embargo had any affect on that. And it is not like they have weapons pointing at us now. Also we have normalized relations with countries who are a far bigger threat to our security then Cuba ever will be. And I am not even sure what this means, or is referring to. Nor, am I sure it is germane to the discussion. But listen, this is a hold over from the cold war. And it is just not feasible to continue to think that in in our foreign policy. We live in a much different world. T

I have been reading a lot about Rubio's comments. They don't seem to make much sense. It is not like the 54 year embargo has ever worked and we have better relationships with countries with far worse records on human rights and treatment of its citizens. And this has the potential to open up Cuba as a huge market, creating jobs and moving industry forward. It would be a good thing for the economy. As for the comments in the article, it is really unfortunate. The one thing the internet has done has given people a platform to say whatever damn fool thing they want and have other damn f

and this is kinda of big deal too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/17/obama-cuba_n_6340550.html

Well since it appears that we are done talking about the our federal expenditures and what goes to what (which is a shame, because it was getting really interesting) and the various name changes of Atticus, I want to bring up Ted Cruz. I was slightly amused by his political wranglings during the omnibus bill debate. Some background, in order to try to block funding for Obama's immigration executive order he and Mike Lee kept the Senate from adjourning. Thus allowing the currently democratically controlled senate to confirm a lot Obama appointments. Including the new Surgeon General, who

I don't understand the RnR HOF. Music is so subjective. It is not like sports HOFs were for the most part all you need is numbers to get in the HOF. It would fun to see a ban on anyone who used PEDs from getting into the RnR HOF. Would there be anyone in there?

You know something we don't?

I like links.

Why do you insist on cherry picking items from the defense budget and then comparing to welfare as a whole? It is a stupid comparison. See I can do it to: We spent only 80 billion on food stamps last year, way less than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Factually correct statement, but not an appropriate comparison. You said welfare, (which is listed as a line item in your chart). Heaven forbid I infer anything from any statements you make, I have learned I need to take what you say literally. And yes, I agree with you as a percentage of our federal government social program

probably because of Common Core. And btw I found this which is more of a federal break down on the estimates of percentages of federal spending. You can click on the top for the various years. But for those that are click adverse here is a simple breakdown. 2012 Defense 24% Welfare 12% 2013 Defense 24% Welfare 11% 2014 Defense 21% Welfare 10% 2015 Defense 19% Welfare 10% 2016 Defense 18% Welfare 9% 2017 Defense 18% Welfare 9% But as you can see as a percentage of federal spending we spend about twice as much on defense as welfare. But if you include other social programs esp

It is not the amount, it is the attitude. At least for me. It is the willingness to just spend, on the military, at times on things the don't need or want. But even small domestic spending gets is shouted as unnecessary and not worth our tax dollars.

I don't think that is a libertarian impulse. I have always thought libertarians were more isolationist in their world view. I think it is more of a Neo Conservative view. But yes you are right it is weird, the sheer willingness to throw money at conflicts overseas/military, but be these deficit hawks when it comes to any domestic spending.

I don't disagree. Intelligence gathering is very hard, but if you look at the run up to the war there were some massive failings by the CIA. And the administration at that time took that faulty information and totally ran with it, and convinced the American people that this war was needed and justified. And thousands of people died. It is a tough call, but just when it is a tough call doesn't mean the President should be held blameless when that call is made. It is funny you seem to be giving the previous administration a pass in regards to Iraq and their failings, but yet you seem the

The chairman is entitled to his opinion. Doesn't mean it is true. Otherwise this information would have been included in the report. This a report put out by a GOP controlled committee. They felt the chairman's opinion didn't warrant inclusion in the report. I think we should trust the findings of the committee, just as we trust things like grand juries. But I guess if people continue to shout Benghazi there will be idiots who believe that it is some sort of scandal. As for Iraq report, I never said the Democrats were blameless. But the scope and breadth of the intelligenc

I wouldn't want them to waste any time on Benghazi, considering they have already wasted enough time and recently concluded that CIA and military acted properly and asserted no wrong doing by the Obama administration. http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2014/11/21/house-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories But of course a Senate Intelligence committee saw it differently http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/washington/05cnd-intel.html?_r=0 and just for fun http://www.globalresearch.ca/twenty-lies-about-the-iraq-war/5327386 If it wasn't a lie (or lies) they had som

And that distinction needs to be made and shouted. The wars / militarily actions of other administrations my have not been correct, nor moral for that matter, but they were not predicated on a lie.

Yes, they lost the election, that is true. I am not disputing that. There were winners and losers. But can you really call yourself a winner when you have the deck stacked in your favor? I referenced Austin, which clearly is a set of gerrymandered districts and does not representative of the people of Austin. How is that ok? How does that good for or government? Is it ok because people in power are closely aligned with your political world view? How can you decry San Antonio incorporating your town, with out you having a say, but be ok with a city not being represented in congress.

I know you lean to the right, but I would think it would bother you, at least somewhat. The South is very diverse and many different types of people live there. Even though you don't necessarily agree with their politics, it means they are not being represented properly. You may not necessarily agree with their politics, but you should be troubled that large groups are not being represented in the governmental process. Take for example Austin, a large urban and very liberal, however the city itself does not have an "anchor district." The largest city in the nation not have one. So ins

If you are not with us you are against us.