dayman

You shouldn't convince your base good ideas are bad by associating them with different ideas.

The quote I posted that I don't like is dirty IMO b/c speaking to Solyndra (even though you aren't mentioning them) to vilify tax credits is dirty.

damn I need to learn to speak (*#lj4)@ I can't follow discussion these days

Romney will remove specific things that work and replace them with "regulatory reform and R&D and production." Ok, he's got a plan. I realize that now. Haha, look I don't care about the politics of energy. Whoever is elected needs to keep the incentives and credits for domestic production of green energy, frack smart and a lot, and position ourselves for the future in a way that keeps up w/ China and Germany. It's not some voodoo. Parlaying Solyndra into making green energy a bad thing and tax credits wasteful government spending is just backwards political inertia.

LOL look I didn't realize quoting a Romney spokesperson from the 5 hour old article posted in the 1st post was spouting misinformation.

Tax credits and incentives for domestic production of wind, solar, tidal, etc...that kills oil and coal? And nobody is trying to kill gas. Romney either doesn't get the energy game or he's playing up the "love oil, green energy is bull ****" angle for election purposes. I hope it's the latter if he wins.

A shade better than what?

hehe

The % of the 30% of the stimulus that invested in some various green energy efforts may be bad business as far as some are concerned but tax credits, incentives, things of that nature that help spur us to prosper in new/green energy are important. We can't be the only retarded country sitting around doing nothing about energy except building pipelines and drilling more offshore.

"He will allow the wind credit to expire, end the stimulus boondoggles, and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits," Romney spokesman Shawn McCoy told the Register. "Wind energy will thrive wherever it is economically competitive, and wherever private sector competitors with far more experience than the president believe the investment will produce results." Bleh, Romney's national energy policy is "I don't have an energy policy?"

Whoever is running the search should pick himself.

Pretty sure the guy who is arguing against this idea would take issue with the "little bump" he got from who his Dad was.

Really? I give my money to Chik-Fil-A b/c their chicken is the best in fast food. I then give it to HBO b/c they have the best original programming.

haha this is actually kind of good...except for the part about Trent being better

Him and Gore made regulatory reform a major issue and i supported that and always will. Us wacky liberal folk aren't for regulation purely for regulations sake. We aren't anti-regulation either. Smart, effective regulation when necessary is an important function of government. Too much, too complicated, not needed, not effective...all bad. But regulation itself is not the devil. And in any event Clinton regrets the Glass-steagall repeal. Point being though, regulatry reform is a constant battle we should always as a country strive to balance the interests in any regulatory enviroment...but war on regulation in general is nothing more than an anti-government talking point that ignores history.

You're a Reagan fan. I like Clinton also...and we can throw anyone else in there. What promise does Romney have that we've seen in the past?

So Romney is the greatest Presidential prospect since Peyton Manning?

That is fair enough. The counter argument of course is that the President isn't the manager of a hedge fund and it's a position unlike any other and with all his mistakes and successes (whatever anyone may think they are) Obama actually has more experience that directly relates to being POTUS than all but 4 people on earth. I mean I get the Romney has executive experience argument and the Obama sucks argument ... but the idea Romney has more experience at this moment to be President? It's a stretch. I get that people think Obama is terrible but he doesn't even learn from experience? This whole POTUS experience argument constantly acts like we're in 2008.

I mean are we implying that any definition of success that doesn't directly flow from managing a hedge fund is lesser?

I'm just wondering what natural predictors for future Presidents did Obama have when he was born? I'm not sitting here trying to claim Obama did it all by himself. B/c as we all know, if you become President...you didn't win that. But I'm just saying....Obama didn't build himself up?

lol wanting to move away from fossil fuels and not having a beard makes him 99% bearded commie. I actually love you as a poster.

Psshh...you get 0. He's middle aged, no glasses or beard, and not an outwardly dorky looking guy.

LOL I just looked. Pretty normal looking guy actually.

A few things based on the interview b/c some of the questions you raised are similar to what the host of the show asked. The most obvious is the last part on the short term economy...the results I posted are from 2011 so he didn't know at the time. He didn't specifically go through the keys again in the interview but said the result hasn't changed and he thinks Obama will still win. Major social unrest he did comment on and said it means what it says..."major" and it usually is not going to go against the incumbent. Major scandal he said must be directly tied to the president. For example he said he gave that to the right in both '04 and '08. And then as for the subjective nature of it he said "buy my book" (lol) and there are some more details about how he analyzes them ... but he acknowledged they are still somewhat subjective b/c they aren't hard data but he thinks the hard data (and specifically polls) people use are absolute garbage.

You know this brings up an interesting point that I've thought about before. Basically wondering...should Paul or the libertarian movement have attached to the GOP? B/c really the way I see it historically the GOP has spent even though they are supposedly the party of fiscal conservatism. And they are obviously the party of social conservatism. And his war positions directly oppose that of the GOP more so than the Dems. I often wondered, given the accepted premise that he needed to infiltrate a major party in order to gain funding and "legitimacy" in the eyes of the voters ... whether the libertarian movement would have had an equally strong chance pushing the left its way as the right. The obvious reality is no matter what he wouldn't sway either party completely...but could he have pulled more Dems and then still poached moderate Repubs undercutting their spending position and leaving them w/ mere social conservatism and war policy. Not really making a point here and I'm not suggesting anything either way just thinking out loud..but I have often wondered if maybe the Libertarian movement could have netted more voters on balance had they chosen to sort of push the left their way and poach from the right as opposed to vis versa. Now obviously the basic economic philosophy is a big push. But no less a push than many of the foreign policy and social issues is to the right. And in general it's not like the GOPs economic philosophy was actually aligned w/ Paul to begin with (although it obviously was closer). Anyway...idk...thoughts? Stupid?