dayman

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Egyptians-pelt-Hillary-Clintons-motorcade-with-tomatoes/articleshow/14969582.cms

So, as you see it, Obama is an egomaniac who has invested his legacy in "green" energy and out of pure stubbornness opposes pragmatic solutions to our energy competitiveness? Don't you think this sounds more like a litmus test for your own view of Obama more than anything else?

That's what we "had" there. It happened before modern fracking was what it is today (which is very recent). And in any event like I said I would agree. Although military spending developing such technologies has worked in the past and can/might be working now...which is somewhat similar in that we pay for the development anyway... As for my above comment about subsidies I will say the less portable the energy the less hostile I am towards subsidies although as you pointed out here, unless they are necessary I'm not a huge fan. And in any event gas is coming along in that respect from what I've read...

And btw I have a problem with subsidizing oil companies who pay no taxes and profit plenty. And would have a problem doing the same when they frack. So we're not far off on the issue of subsidies.

In general I would have agreed all along. And looking back I would agree with respect to a few investments that were a part of the stimulus. But the stimulus was the stimulus, that's not (contrary to Obama haters beliefs) the primary way in a non economic disaster situation that anyone says we should nudge green energy initiatives. In saying what I've said above I do not mean, and did not say, massively subsidize green energy companies as a matter of course is the way to go.

Huge amounts of public land are going to fracked, that's what the regulations are about in the first place. As for green energy initiatives, it's pretty sad even with fracking developments you put that phrase in quotes. It will still be crucial to the not-so-distant future of energy. As for why some green energy businesses go under it's not complicated, and it's not b/c the concepts are a crock of ****. In fact Solyndra for example, (most GOP supporters favorite example), had to do w/ competition (in large part China's surge in the solar market). But then again green energy is a myth so there would be no competition? Obama has even compromising on the damn oil pipleine itself you people love to scream about over and over. The bottom line is, both parties and both candidates are/would move in substantially the same direction regarding energy. Obama probably would like to diversify more as opposed to dump all the chips in fossil fuels and Romney would probably be better for oil/gas companies having less regulation. But the idea Obama can be painted as "anti-energy" is a load of **** lobbyists dump down redneck America's throat and they gobble it up. I'm not an expert on energy anyway, but if I had to make a decision I would say vigorously support smart-fracking and continue to create an environment that encourages alternative energy development (which carries with it an inherent risk of failure). That's pretty close to what Obama's stance is becoming here in the last year with fracking coming along stronger. "I'm an energy voter. And Obama is not the devil." -commercial on fox

It would be nice to set up Obama as someone who doesn't support fracking. If it were true. They're banging out the regulation and it's a back and forth and it goes with out saying the industry would like no regulation. Fracking is something that clearly needs sensible, and probably significant, regulation. Clearly the industry would take whoever would have the least regulation. But they pump chemicals deep into the ground at pressure powerful enough to crack shale miles below, and it all relies on a cement casing coming back up to keep the fluid and methane etc from leaking everywhere. Both POTUS candidates support growing our fracking industry. And despite regulation being a bad word these days to some, both presidents damn sure better see that we frack smart. We're not on some countdown where we have 5 seconds to frack or our heads blow off. Don't be convinced that fracking regulations are anti-fracking. YOu are smarter than that.

In the last 2 or so years fracking shale has emerged as the dominating future energy source. Not only can it change the geopolitics of energy for the better but many think it can be done "safely." All that said, this was not known at the time of the Solydra investment but lest any GOP supporter let slide an opportunity to mention that investment. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/10/zakaria-the-game-changer-in-the-geopolitics-of-energy/

His foreign policy rhetoric is troubling. Simpson-Bowles >> budget he backs and many question his ability to raise taxes when/if necessary being beholden to his party (if/when politically possible in a 2nd term it seems to me Obama will be more prone to back something like that). I don't think he has a plan for healthcare that would be as meaningful as the ACA if he were somehow able to repeal the it. A lot of people don't understand why in this climate of distrust for "big money" in America (whether right or wrong) he won't release more personal info that a lot of people would like to know about (probably info he would ask of any VP when he vets them) which goes to just generally knowing what you are getting. For meaningless social issues that some people care about (even thought they don't change) there's a split there. Generally speaking, the idea he (or anyone) "knows" how to "fix" this economy and what will work is asinine...so a lot of people don't buy his main argument that he's the magic man we need...etc etc There are a ton of legitimate criticisms of Obama as well, obviously. The Romney campaign like every campaign is just a campaign. It's just words. You listen to them and decide, "do I like what I'm hearing." Contrary to popular belief there is real disagreement as far as what to actually do on the economy and nobody, absolutely nobody, knows what will work going forward. You look at the candidates as a whole and you decide which joker you can stand. And one thing I wonder about, is given the primary and the state of the GOP how he will be as leader in the WH. To sum it all up everything anyone would criticize Obama for, the same thing. Economy, healthcare, foreign policy, leadership in Washington, etc...it's all the same. IN the end we'll all just have to pick one and hope things go well.

Taxes! Taxes! Ahhh!

I thought apologizing was Obama's default? No?

Robots need something to do when they're done walking my dog and cleaning my dishes. Also 2nd Amendment folk should rejoice. Everyone needs a gun to keep their robot in line.

It seems to be taking the lead in the green-sustainable movement, it did basically start the early internet, we went to space b/c of it..cool sound oriented stuff we can do now....more examples. Just saying as someone who is outraged at the money we spend I do like the R&D there. Hell just the other day I saw some crazy waist high dog like machine w/ pretty amazing working legs. You could push it around and it would just walk and balance and catch itself. I think it's supposed to go with them into battle carry stuff and maybe even lay down as a shield or something but it walks good..in lots of terrain and stuff..that technology will one day do something impressive in our everyday lives. Here it is...I just think it's cool. Even if it costed some ammount of money that I would cringe at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5349770802105160028 I mean as crazy as it seems to actually say this...we'll probably have robots one day. Just walking around. That's basically a robot. Walking around. Hell spend the next few years standing that thing up, put a human body on it w/ arms, give it a computer chip brain and let it come clean my house while I work. Do some yard work. Etc

I couldn't agree more, the overall military money needs to come down. At the same time, I do like the military. Military oriented R&D spending has changed the world...

Ya know now that I think about you are right. There is no problem w/ that. Glad you could clear that up. Dick Morris did some polling...

Now now, the crux of his point is that the GOP should do a better job not having people carry their banner who are alienating moderates who are turned off by the extremes (both extremes). I think anyone who actually wants the country to adopt the conservative principles they believe in would agree that it's probably worth recognizing there's an issue there, you don't have to admit the party has gone of the rails just to admit that they can do better.

MIt is the boogeyman. Try me mods

Awe thanks Tom you are too kind. Happy birthday Obama, I'm waiting on that dinner.

Thanks. Not very funny but a decent ending: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn5c1FuLDd4&feature=relmfu

I have no idea what Romney's relationship was or if he wasn't making any profits or not (I don't think anybody knows that do they? Isn't that the tax return issue?). But we both know what the abortion crowd wants, a warrior. Anyone that had anything to do with it, is the devil. And anyone that may have had a chance (theoretically of course) to stop it or stop a service connected with it...is worse than Sandusky.

Ok I just watched video at first. Disposing of aborted fetuses attack? OMG I'm not going to lie I laughed at that one, politics is sometimes pretty funny. And the name of the company, classic.

Ya I mean that'll be the slant clearly if it's her, which it will not be.

Are there dealings from Bain in the 3 years following '98 that are things significantly "worse" than before that Romney has to avoid explaining? I'm not some Bain expert but why is Romney so sensitive to these 3 years?

I see know I guess I missed this whole "story" haha. To me it's more Bain hardball. Romney is going to have to confront it politically, if apparently his name was on the SEC filings for 3 more years. I mean I think politically his base won't care but I guess some independents in some swing states want to know (at least that's the calculation both sides seem to take seriously since there's such a fight over this stuff). And apparently he said it was a leave of absence when he went to run for Governor of Mass to show he intended to return so he could run there (residency etc). Their using felony card to force him to admit he wasn't off the hook for some of the time where I guess they have some business decisions to exploit. It's hardball. Obviously nobody that supports Romney is going to like this stuff and you'll all just say I'm a partisan hack for saying this but that's not a big deal even though I know the other side will get defensive. It's just forcing the issue of Bain a bit more and not letting him dodge whatever they want to attack there. I live in Florida, I've seen worse than that on TV from both sides and the primaries haven't even hit. Obama gets hit hard in Florida almost every 3rd commercial break on the channels I watch. Hell a years ago in Florida we got a **** load actual TV ads LITERALLY calling our governor a felon who got rich defrauding the gov't, and then we elected him anyway lol.

LOL I forgot about that bilderberg thing. Haha that would be classic.