dayman

OC you are a terrible contributor to this board just leave. It's ridiculous. And nobody is a supporter of a simpson/bowles approach more than I and everyone that knows 1 thing and 1 thing only about the last 2 years in Washington knows exactly why it didn't get adopted by anyone. B/c it never could have been. Plain and simple. Simpson himself said in multiple interviews if Obama adopted it, it would be rejected unanimously by Repubs and he knew that as fact. That said I still wish he would have done it anyway...but the bottom line is now is the time for this debate. Sadly the country's approach is that we can only do this once every 4 years now...but that's better than never.

Ryan is articulate, smart, and likable if you watch him speak. Obama can crush him on it by highlighting the downfalls and actually establishing a more gradual balanced approach w/ some concrete details. If he doesn't, Ryan WILL sell his plan as the only plan. Hence, this is a win for the country not just Romney. IT's made the election somewhat real.

Well I actually would hate that. What I would like to see it as is putting the Ryan budget front and center as what Ryan is calling it...a starting point to a negotiation...then as a country we actually negotiate. I don't know where you get the "not changing it for anyone" part...but that would make this election worthless and I would then hate the Romney/Ryan combo. Either way I've had almost 2 full bottles of wine right now so I may be reading your post wrong....but as far as I know Ryan doesn't say anything about "not changing his position" and that's why I like the pick so much.

Not the way I see it. He's out there w/ the "starting point" talking point already marginalizing his position. It's actually good for the country. If they see that plan as a "starting point" it immunizes his position from this sort of attack. To assert he is trying to destroy certain valuable policies to people Obama Co. has to come up w/ a way a way this could be done that doesn't while still addressing the problems we have (and time is fine but something must be said). Then when they start debating the differences the real fight begins. Then magically we have a real election. It's a win/win for both sides b/c let us be real...Dem or Repub it's time to have this debate. We couldn't when we spent 2 years preparing for the election and to "defeat Obama at all costs" but maybe we can now. This is hopeful thinking but either way... I like the Ryan pick.

lol just a burn I do hope you did well IDK if you know yet or not man no bad wishes lol

OC literally quoting a post I explain how debates are crucial and ranting about me saying they are no big deal out of fear? I think when it comes to reading comprehension you "just don't get it." (that feels good I think it is a tool of mine now wow)

I actually agree. Now the Obama squad has to attack him and his plan to attack Mitt and he's excellent at defending it...plus it puts the best man to defend it in front of the microphone to answer all the attacks. In the end while some pundits say it opens them up to a hot button attack target...he was open anyway and now he has someone good to answer for it. Someone who basically will know more about everything budget related than almost anyone else. Plus...it turns everything into budget talk. Ultimately I think Ryan will go down as a good pick. Win or lose.

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.