Neo

A very funny post that balances irony, humor, and respect in the context of a very ugly situation. I dig it. I dig Josie's insight, as well.

Insight. I agree. Giving him the same respect I gave 39, I'll say best goalie in the game. Three seasons at this level, in the conversation for best player in the game. Seven seasons, among the best goalies OR players of all time.

Ol' Weave, you are right on. I learned this lesson in the conversations around liberty, data collection, the Patriot Act, etc. Far right libertarians and far left ACLU attorneys, joining sides. It's a circle, not a line.

Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders ... I am seeing the 7 - 10 split of candidates! A divide as large as it comes!

Insight. I like this. I'll second my comment ... Insight, I like this.

I'm with you until your closing. He can't be too far gone too soon for me. More interesting than Trump is his appeal and who it attaches to. It interests me because of what it says about the electorate. I am surprised he's north of 20%. I'm also surprised that he has staying power. I thought "McCain's not a hero" and "I like soldiers who don't get captured" would finish him. I do think he has a ceiling, though, and won't get much higher. My gut feel is that his supporters are in part: 1) conservatives frustrated by the party ultimately nominating a more centrist candidate, and; 2) people frustrated by political rhetoric who yearn for a candidate who speaks plainly, and; 3) those enamored with an outsider, regardless of his particular stances. I'm sympathetic to all three. That doesn't bring me to Trump. A third part candidacy would be a disaster. Wall Street Journal opinion page, August 6. Rove on Trump. Good read, if it's available to non-subscribers. My thoughts have not yet baked.

You get whacky Progressives elected. Sorry, softball. icrackmeup.

I don't need to see any more of Cruze, Christie or Trump. With special regard to Trump, I'd say he knows who he is today. That may change tomorrow. Interesting question I cannot answer: "Who won?"

I heard Carson speak in a small venue before he was a candidate. It was days after the prayer breakfast that put him on the. map. Charisma!

I don't see God and science as mutually exclusive. There are rubs. That's humanity.

And I will ponder how capital is created without demand.

I missed the end. I hope my DVR went long enough. I'll look.

Exactly. I recognize your sarcasm, though, with your well earned respect. I certainly am not. I don't believe you are. You've read Ian Bremmer! I say "no!".

Demand exists by itself. It only ebbs, flows, and re-prioritizes. If there's a human being, there is demand.

Um, no. Why is it in the banks? "Because it has no tax efficient and attractive place to go". Let me ask ... Do you not believe, in an economy, that savings = investment? I'll look for your finance text!

Neither does without the other.

Without depth? Regarding Kasich, I'll have to learn more about his view on education. You may be ahead of me. If, though, he thinks it's problems aren't with funding, and instead are with mission and work rules, I'm likely to be sympathetic to him.

It depends on the alternative to consumption. Assume it does. Then the dollars end up in banks and investment houses where it becomes capital for other business and job creators. In short, it's consumption and taxed, or if it's banked and invested. Either way, it's available to others to grow.

. Yikes, three comments to respond to. I'll start with Mr. whiskey. He rightly pointed out "progressive" in the tax vernacular. More in a few minutes! I'm on tape delay. Sincerely: Why do you say that? Fiscal conservative, social liberal!

1). It doesn't reduce the value, at all, of productive activity. You work, you get paid, you keep your money. You end up with more work because it's more profitable to the person working. 2). It "taxes" those who consume, progressively more at higher incomes with more dollars available for consumption. 3). It's simple. A populace can understand the code that taxes that populace. Ask me tax questions. The IRC is dense and complicated and almost obscene.

I'll take Bush, Walker, Paul, Rubio and Kasich from tonight. Toss in Fiorina and Santorum from the happy hour debate and I'm down to my final seven. I prefer executives as chief executive. I'll call Paul and Rubio my 6th and 7th.

Face to face highlight: Paul vs. Christie on the 4th amendment. ""You had warrants" vs "I hugged victim's families"".

For debate and discussion day after day ... Ben Carson on Hilary Clinton - "The Alinsky model of taking advantage of useful idiots". I'll let you all draw your own conclusion on the accuracy of that statement, but I hope you all join me in loving the colorfulness! FTR: Carson's a great man. He's spiritual, thoughtful and accomplished. He "did build that company" with talent and effort. He's not Presidential.

Inane. What inane remarks are you referring to? They occur with "such frequency". You should have dozens of examples. I recorded the debate. I will answer the bell. I find the debate informative. I think the questions on Fox were very challenging. One after another. Lastly, I don't need to see Donald Trump again.

"It is nothing short of infuriating to see people going on about trading the assets still remaining at this years deadline in hopes that if by some miracle we are in contention for 8th place. As if wasti" Same post on Twitter. Welcome, and well thought out. Shared view, here, on the SabresSpace vs WGR fan base. Dumping Fasching 3 points out on deadline day would lead to a revolt, here, as starved as we are. I'd be interested in hearing more of your take on Kane.