dayman

I wouldn't call them a responible world actor but I would call them a rational actor in the sense that things made not in their best interest by conditions placed on them throught the world community can and will deter certain of their own behavior adn things that threaten their very existence as a regime will be forgone. They're dead set on going forward with what they see as their soverign right, to have nuclear domestic energy program...and that means having the ability to make a bomb along with it really. That said, I think we can use this carrot as a lure to bring them into a situation where they can be expected to act mores so as a responsible member of the international community. That doesn't mean they'll be responsible in terms of cooperating with our best intersts or that of Israel..but at least that perhaps if we make concessions and they do as well...they can come back closer to the international community in terms of where they are now and that is ultimately the goal of all involved who don't want war. And I do think that by the narrow definition I hold "rational actor" to they are in fact still a rational actor even if they are dysnfuctional and possibly mislead and eating severe sanctions right now. Basically in sum what I'm saying is the starting point in negotiation and the talking points of "no nuclear program whatsoever" is ok to an extent in this game of chicken/diplomacy but the honestly take that approach to the problem beyound international posturing and not being open to creative options including some form of nuclear Iran as a result is something that is a non-starter in terms of real progress. Now...there may and hopefully are some alternative approaches to compromise besides nuclear Iran that can work...so I'm not suggesting those aren't preferable. Nuclear nations will always argue they're bad and should be controlled. NonNuclear states seeking them will alway aregue security. The real issue here is proliferation v. security. If we can break the interests off from specific tactics I think there is some room to make a deal here.

As predicted Romney touched on foreign policy in Israel (no ****) on "foreign soil." His "I won't comment on foreign policy on foreign soil" w/ MOrgan was just what it always was..."I'll only give speeches about foreign policy I won't talk in interviews or answer follow up questions about it."

I'm going to go way way out there in terms of the way Americans typically discuss foreign policy but IMHO...I don't think EVEN IF they build a damn bomb...it's worth going to war over. Period. Nuclear arms have historically been a deterent. We had our cold war never fired them. Lots of other countries have them and don't use them. Pakistan and India went to war constantly until the bomb now they both have one and never do anymore. I understand teh rhetoric of Iran is out of control but I do see them as rational actors, they are interested in their own preservation. Not to say I wouldn't try to do everything I can to stop them from getting a bomb. But the policy of "we will do what it takes to make Israel safe"...if that means going to war to stop Iran from getting a bomb...the bottom line is that's a stupid ****ing policy no matter what candidate says it. I think secretly at least Obama knows that and maybe even Mitt (I hope). And I sure as hell basically know Iran has done the math and knows it isn't worth it for any country to go nuts over this...

Plain and smiple facts about American guns: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/27/time-to-face-facts-on-gun-control/

FYI I have been reading most posts so just b/c I don't respond doesn't mean I didn't read or listen to the various points for Romney. Reminds me of this promo haha (zach galifianakis platform). "Washington DC is a mess. Things are a mess, IT'S A MESS" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSIX9q_rqB8

This is the book I should read? (just to be clear I've been on a book kick lately so I damn well might read it). And just to sum up quickly I would get what out of it? Is it unfair to say that Unnamed President left the next guy with the opportunity (not that he took it) to really capitalize on successful groundwork. Reagan left the next guy with a mini-bomb that went off in his face producing a 1-term reign.

I just chuckle when Reaganites talk about the evils of deficit spending. Historically since 1980 when Reagan won on the antitax, antiregulation, antigovernment platform that the Republicans have adopted the greatest accomplishment was not to reduce the size of government but simply to stop paying for it. But for some reason it will be different w/ Mitt Romney today...IDK why but I guess it will... If the Tea Party really wanted a hero would it be Reagan? I really don't see why. What if I suggested there was a theorhetical President that had 4 surplus budgets, actually began to pay DOWN the debt, eliminated 16 thousand pages of federal regulations, cut taxes on the middle class, reduced welfare rolls by lamost 60 percent, reduced the size of the fedeeral work force to the lowest level since 1960, pulled 7.7 million people out of poverty (compared to the 77,000 Reagan pulled out of poverty), and all while seeing the economy produce tons of jobs (92 percent increase in the private sector, largest increase in 50 years)? Does that sound like someone that the Tea Party could get behind? So long as I keep his name out of that paragraph it kind of does. Also so long as I don't mention that we did actually spend (gasp) quite a bit in that time on things that returned value. Anyway it is a tangent all I'm saying is that when I see people who in some topics love Reagan so much discussin things in here I can't help but chuckle. I don't hate Reagan btw, but I do prefer the unamed President I described above. I'm sure you all know who I'm talking about though and my God what a terrible man he was.

But seriously in a non-combative way I'm just asking (since this seems to be an issue for you) it's a simple question and I may well be wrong on it. But the basic equation is that we have things we need to do within the next 20ish years anyway everybody agrees on this, and we can do it cheaper than ever if we do it now, and it requires us to pay people to do it now when unemployment is an issue conservatives and liberals alike agree on...so why is this a political or ideological debate? What is the deal? How can a rational decision maker not come to this conclusion is what I'm asking? Raging about the debt is popular...but is it rational?

And just to go ahead and reveal where I'm tempted to go with this....I know this is a democractic talking point but we do have infrastructure and things we can do even if we don't have to do it now we will need to do it in the next 20ish years and probably can never do it as cheaply (at a profit?) as we can now. Plus it puts people to work and would help spur the economy. So my basic question is spending money you don't have is bad I get that. But ... would any business man not look at this and see gold? Do the facts support this "Obama spending like a maniac" pitch as a bad thing? Should we not be borrowig by issuing treasury bonds like drunken sailors right now to spur us in the short term and build for the long term at rates that look amazing? As a "business guy" would Mitt Romney not get this? Rape Europe while they are down b/c they may pick themselves up soon or later? Strike while the iron is hot?

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/pages/textview.aspx?data=realyield I know I know...don't spend money...but are people paying us money for the privelege of holding their money right now b/c the rest of the world is so !@#$ed? Will we ever be able to invest in ourselves the way we can right now? I'm not finance or economy guy, so I'm not trying to make a point here. I'm just asking is this normal? All those negative signs...seem...good to me...am I an idiot?

Haha, fair enough appreciate the honesty. I'm just saying I understand the "I hate Obama" argument somewhat. It's the other part I want to hear about. The "Romney for President" part is important to me if I can even consider voting for him.

You don't have to respond man lol. It's ok. I'm just saying...he's on the ballot now and it's getting close...time to give some serious thought to the choice (which I will and always do despite not liking the GOP the last few years) what should I think about? Why vote for Mitt Romney? I'm not even saying this as a political attack or some snarky comment. I'm just saying...there are quite a few posters here supporting him. What's up? Why vote FOR Mitt Romney? That's all I'm asking.

so sell me on Mitt Romney

Just trying to put my finger on it. What is it if not that, that makes you love Romney? And if so, what the hell is it Romney is going to cut or rework so much to slash enough what with this anti-tax trend he's hostage to? And if this is not it at all...what is it? Basically...sell me on Romney. And just stay on point...sell me on Romney. Don't talk about anything else.

Just saw this today. I denfinitly could climb out of that IMO.

Ok not "cool" just...anythign remotely worthy or praise I should say. I don't mean I thought he was cool, I mean I thought there were redeeming qualities of any type. That is to say I was cool w/ him ... to be clear.

Guys I'm going to admit for a while I thought Axle Rose was cool. I was wrong.

This is a bad interview. Not really either mans fault this is just boring. Ok Mitt's wife talking about dating other people while he was in France spreading Mormonism was pretty great.

Look when he goes to Israel he's not going to talk foreign policy? When he meets with British intellegence (assuming that's what the articles said IDK I didn't click them) he's talking about horses? It's fine to not critize Obama "on foreign soil" if that means anything this day in age (which I don't think it does). But you can still talk. And if we don't want to undermine the president too badly it's not being physically on foreign soil that matters it's saying ridiculous things in the globally accessed media. In any event Mitt just dropped a Rubio comment. Hints? Maybe..

Not a big fan of the gun discussion put forth by Mitt but he said nothing I wouldn't expect him to and most people on the board would take his side so rather uneventful first session.

Foriegn soil doesn't matter there's a little thing called the internet. He's speaking to Pierce Morgan. And he doesn't comment on foreign policy period b/c Americans don't care about that.

So if we don't give tax breaks to companies that set up shop here and stop giving them to those going over seas we have $25 lettuce. I get it now.

It will be on Morgan tonight. As to where it took place...don't be a fool.

I guess he wouldn't even talk about foreign policy at all in the interview he did w/ Pierce Morgan that will air tonight.

Milk? Just drinking milk? What is this?