dayman

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.

Is there an ad where Obama calls Romney a felon or is it all the media/surrogates? If ad can someone link it?

Bleh I'm drunk and sleepy for my Friday sleep in day (my birthday actually lol I know you all feel great for me)...but I got the video up and am watching it. it's Obama so it's an hour or course. Maybe I'll back to this tonight but in not then I will later and state my opinion on the speech.

Well the simplest way to put is it what did you mean initially? What counter attacks did McCain call off that bothered you?

Reagan shook his first publicly, negotiated well privately, and above all came to understand as his Presidency went on the Soviet situation and applied pressure to capitalize on their internal dysfunction. In the most simple and brief way possible (to avoid another book), those are my thoughts. In his dealings with the Soviets, he was successful through what he did at the time he did it. And that in no way marginalizes his accomplishment as I see it, to put it that way. In what ways do you feel President Obama has gone around the world apologizing for America? This is one thing I have never been able to understand, though recognizing some people really do feel this way.

Sad post. And while Romney will play hardball, no doubt, he has not and IMO probably will not do what I read this post as suggesting McCain should have done. That is, go Lee Atwater on crack. If that isn't what you meant, then I'm sorry and I just don't know what you mean.

It would depend on whether or not I thought the policies he would promote in the modern day would work. If they were the same ones as he employed in the 80s, I probably would not. And that does not mean simply cutting taxes or spending or anything like that. If he evaluated the modern situation, took in the evidence, and came to conclusions that seemed plausible and communicated them well I would certainly have faith he could carry them out as a leader. But lets be frank, it would depend on if the Democrats let it happen. And vis versa with the president today (and that isn't playing the blame game). I will say this though, I do think there is some truth when Jeb Bush says the modern GOP climate makes it difficult for anybody to do that ... be a pragmatist (publicly). I do believe, even though I do not support Mit Romney, that ultimately if he is elected president he will analyze the situation both foreign and domestic and make some decisions that he believes are the best way to go. And even though I know Obama is the devil to some people that is what I believe he has done. And that is what I believe Bush did even though a couple of those were clearly either the wrong choice or were executed badly. And so on...on...and on. It's one of the fundamental reasons I'm so pro-executive. It's not b/c I'm want a dictator. And I do love our form of government generally. But I want a strong president. When you consolidate power, and the real world weight of modern political decisions is staring you in the face...you are going to think twice about it. And the staunch ideology of your base, some stupid pledge you sign to some idiot lobbyist, all the dis tractors...on the big issues you have to do what you believe. The President is unlike any other position in Government. That sums up the basic "love the incumbent" sentiment (to put is pessimistically) that some of friends who I discuss this stuff with in person have labeled me with. I know I'll be blasted for suggesting this, but I've learned a lot about China recently. Absolutely no !@#$ing way am I suggesting China is in anyway preferable to us. I'm not a communist. I'm not a socialist. But there are aspects of the Chinese system of leadership that really do work very well. And those same aspect often create huge problems when they get things wrong. Which is why our system is preferable, but IMO with as strong a President as possible. (and of course...ya know...a bill of rights and emphasis on personal freedom in our private speech and whatnot etc) EDIT: And btw I'm not actually a "love the incumbent" guy that's a cheap shot my more "pure democracy" friends will throw my way when he dork out with beers and talk about this. Just for the record. I have no problem admitting that like a lot of other people I supported Bush though on some policies that backfired...but that's life. As I see it that is a false simplification of history. But I'm not God and that's just my understanding. One thing he was, was a strong President in his time. And I agree that is timeless. But why that ended up being the case...was more complicated than his shaking his fist and calling people evil. As was it simply uping the ante on spending. And yes...I'm not knocking him for it...but there were some factors out of his control that fell his way. And as I said before, he was a successful president on that front there is no argument.

I'll save the prolonged point I was going to make there as a back-and-forth and just cut the chase. The critics of his public approach (even though from all I know his private approach while firm was quite different) said he was a radical McCarthiast who would bring nuclear war. If he was an unpleasant man, or a brooding booyman as Nixon was made to be publicly, he would never have been able to employ that strategy. History clearly shows he was successful with the Soviet Union on all fronts, behind the scenes and creating a public atmosphere (domestically and abroad) that allowed it all to happen in our best interest. But it was, as all foreign policy is, due to his political ability. It is inherently political, both domestic and foreign. He had to sell the people of America, and then execute. There is absolutely no way to do the later without the former. And it's important to note btw IMO when talking about this given the fact I know you and John are conservatives (generally speaking) that the rhetoric of campaigning and the tactics on the ground when you really have the ability to effect millions are two different things. Reagan himself ripped Kissinger on the campaign trail with regards to China and privately assured him that he would in fact continue on the ground work Kissinger laid and told Kissinger to relay that message to the Chinese. So I would caution (not that I assume you do) you to not just get caught up in the campaign riling speeches and assume it's actually in our best interest to walk around "yelling" at our geopolitical rivals. That isn't something I'm saying you all support, but it was a Republican theme in teh primaries. It all relates back to the point I was making, the "hat" is more than half the battle. In political leadership the "hat" is everything. And it's not a knock. Now obviously if you are "all hat and no cattle" (I'm driving this into the ground lol) that means you weren't successful in the end, and it's no excuse to say you had a good hat. But the hat has to be there either way. And contrary to popular belief Reagan did not merely threaten to crush the Soviets, or strong arm China, or anything like that. Reagan took an approach as any foreign policy success must take, which is engage in some sort of productive dialogue along with applying pressure in a way that is wise. Hell Gorbachev and Reagan were geopolitical rivals...but they actually became friends as well. This isn't b/c he was waiving his finger in his face and calling him evil. In summary, Reagans "hat" was key to his foreign policy. And I would agree with that then.