dayman

LMFAO at you. Do you actually read my posts? No wonder it's taking you time after time to still fail that accounting test or whatever you can't pass. BURN And for the record it's about connecting with anyone in terms of political skill I was discussing in the inspiring bit I said a while ago to which I basically said every president in resent times did to some people Dem or Rep and that I wasn't sure who Romney was speaking to aside from teh "not Obama crowd." It was a political discussion but I get that you all are so defensive you can't understand what a discussion about political skill is or recognize that Romney is at best below average. And you seem to not even be able to recognize that when someone says that...it says just that...and has nothng to do with ability to be president it's a different question entirely just one that so happens to directly correlate with who gets to actually be president.

I'm just skimming the topic but LOL @ that "just don't get it" being a "lefty" attack. And that debate she gave pulled her back into the "somewhat reasonable to ultra conservatives" realm...away from slipping off the edge all together with everybody. They are not debate no question about that...but they are hugely important in the scheme of things. They are the most important speeches candidates give.

Only skimming first page but in response to the $15 a question at town hall...I would actually like that. People going to think about the question and if they still ask a dumb one then I'll give a $15 response and not brush it off. I like it. Once again skimming front page but I agree w/ this. One way or the other both parties have to get in the dirt and deal with issues that aren't so easy to get people excited about and regardless of who you vote for this will help to that end.

Meh it's bull **** you should be able to brink your 5 year old there. Most other cities you can.

I didn't watch but did Merriman look better than Mario? Sign that man now?

Everyone that knows what they're talking about does. It IS the God of cable news. And that's the point. You would think they aren't by FAR the most watched cable news network the way they talk about the "mainstream media."

It is strange how much you conservatives bash MSNBC and say it drives the conversation....then you make fun of it for having no viewers and taut Fox News as the God of Cable News (and it is) and act like Fox News doesn't drive it's own conversation? People who B word about the media should B word that nobody reports well, that the people talking on most of these shows don't have a deep understanding of anything. People who just B word about an MSNBC slant, or even a Fox slant...are retarded.

MILFs def. aren't a rare breed. But you got to have those babies early while their body can still bounce back otherwise they lose the ability to become milfs.

I will agree to disagree is we accept that I am from Earth and you are from Mars where no tax expenditures for anything exist. And btw also, on Mars that's what Mitt Romney believes too.

Join me LA

Tell that to Iowa GOP It's not subsidizing. If it is then so is everything we do in every other industry and dealings w/ oil and coal. And yes it is true we can't compete with direct subsidizing China offers w/ free land, free worker training and 20 year tax holidays. But given that we can and have been helping our domestic production of green energy with credits, and creating jobs, and accelerating the innovation curve, and increasingly furthering our independence and CO2 output...it's a no brainer. It's important to keep these credits. These credits ARE INVESTMENT IN TECHNOLOGY. Direct investment in R&D is something I support as well! Obama supports that! That is actually something we all agree on! But helping provide tax credits to make it more economically viable for domestic companies to get in the game IS CRUCIAL.

Join me Gungy. Join the liberal PPP brigade. But to do so, you must calm yourself. Go into the energy thread and read the debate and join opposing Romney's backwards energy policy. Join the debate on writing down mortgage interest. Make a thread about how he's the golden boy of economics but his policies (vague as they may be) are indistinguishable from standard GOP dogma. Hell make a general thread on how he stands for nothing. And yes, it is acceptable to post in opposition if someone claims that he is more self made than Obama...but remain calm in your dealings with the right here. Remember you will never change anybody's mind here on the candidate but you can have discussion on some issues and learn more about why Romney supporters believe in certain policies...you can even find areas where you can convince them there is valid argument for the other side (though you won't change their mind overall and your mind won't be changed). In general just represent opposition to Romney policy well. They all think we're idiots and love to bash all policy not in line with right wing dogma...but show them it isn't true. And you can also find out there are some issues where they aren't evil or completely retarded either (wind tax credits not going to be one of them) but the point is...don't allow yourself to be fuel for the "liberal idiot" fire they love to see. Join me my gungified brother, walk with me to the promise land of PPP as we reign fire upon the heathen Rush Limbaugh minions and take our rightful seat at the throne of wisdom and leadership and all things wise in this world.

What I'm saying you don't understand is not that intervention in markets is good. It's that there are a few special instances where market forces are not going to take us to the promise land. With all the global competition for clean energy, CO2 reductions efforts, and the status quo....if we are going to stay competitive and be a leader in both energy independence and CO2 reduction then these tax credits are a good thing. And their elimination (to sound like a broken record) without the elimination across the bar off all other credits (including oil, coal, etc) is nothing more than backwards energy and environmental policy.

Me and gungy v. the world. Get w/ it.

No deal here. The winners and loser argument isn't intellectually consistent when credits are pervasive in our tax code for all sorts of continuing business flush w/ cash including Oil. And anyway the future energy market is one of the few where public incentives are crucial. And Obama's green energy initiative supports these credits....as every President since the early 90s have. I don't think Mitt hates green energy and desires CO2 emissions and oil addiction. But this policy makes absolutely no sense, and is asinine. It shows an utter lack of understanding of what is going on in the global market for future energy and the impact of tax credits on our domestic leadership in innovation and production of alternative energy. And aside from environmental and future energy independence concerns, It also is pissing off Iowa officials b/c it directly threatens jobs in their state immediately if it goes away...a not so insignificant side effect for people in Iowa and many other states. I've yet to see a Romney position I disagree with as much as this one. There is almost no credible argument to defend it. Obama is green, his political philosophy is to turn anything Obama supports toxic regardless of its merit, and so now Mitt Romney (former moderate Republican) is against tax credits for domestic wind production. It's just bad.

LOL ya like World said I am generally on your team haha leave me alone my feelings are hurt. I'm just trying to talk about ... the topic.

But you support the elimination of tax credits for green energy while Mitt could care less about Oil credits? Mitt's a philosophical purist here in this position? Mitt is doubling down on anti-green sentiment and meanwhile, India, China, Germany...they can have public incentives and become the leaders of the future. We'll do nothing and let the market work...and by the market work we mean give credits for oil but not wind. This is plain and simple the wrong step and I'm actually as surprised as the Iowa GOP. I disagree with a lot of Romney's positions but few seem as totally asinine as this one. This is quite literally, an anti-future energy policy. It's not about guaranteed loans, it's not about ideology, it's plain and simple about giving the finger to green energy b/c Obama likes it.

LOL my God can we all get off Romney being a self made man v. silver spoon product and back to the metrics of this prediction?

Losing traction? World I've asked you to explain how eliminating the tax credit for wind is a good thing. You haven't. You say it's bad b/c it picks the winners and losers. Of course, other tax credits are all over the place including oil and nobody is talking about those... In fact, it's not even a partisan issue. They have been championed by the past 2 GOP Presidents, passed by GOP congress, and the first post is GOP leadership opposing their elimination. There's no losing traction here. R&D is not something that replaces the benefits of tax credits for wind. And Obama supports both. The elimination of these credits is backwards energy policy.

It was sarcasm he isn't there is no link. Oil gets tax credits. Wind doesn't.

So Mitt is out there talking about oil tax credits needing to be eliminated also? B/c he's not going to pick winners and losers? He's just going to fund R&D b/c that's something we don't already do and Obama doesn't already push for more money for?

Tax incentives to stimulate the green energy investment and production is not market "based?" I do understand your point it's not a purist approach but as has been discussed (I believe with you actually) in the CO2 thread I've made my position known on this. Explain why we need to eliminate those tax credits. Go ahead. Lets here your position.

You have to support the elimination of tax credits for green tech b/c it's Romney's position. I understand. It's ok. I get it.

And by the way to act like we don't fund R&D? We don't already do this? This is a new idea from Romney and it requires the elimination of green tax cuts?