dayman

So are we/have we been too involved or not involved enough in you eyes? What are you suggesting? We should rig their election? We should have never been remotely involved for the past few decades? I'm not trying to attack you btw (since it takes a disclaimer these days on PPP) but just trying to understand if you have any thoughts on this other than just "Obama bad, use Egypt now as argument."

I was going to ask if you were a maniac suggesting we should go into Egypt, or that through policy we could somehow change their country. But then I realized that you just think supporting their electoral process is Obama supporting Islamic extremists.

For some issues I agree, for others I don't. And federal regulation isn't really just "one size fits all." It's one agency fits all, but the regulations/enforcement/exemptions are tailored. And I don't want to suggest I favor a complete federal system for all issues, or that I don't like our 2 tier system generally. But probably more than most clear cut conservatives (definitely more) I'll not view the federal government as inherently worse that the states. The "what about the states!?" movement and the "regulation is evil" movement are both popular right now I know that and it's not without merit on all issues otherwise it wouldn't forever be in our political dialogue for 200+ years running...but ultimately I'm just not so high on the states as others. And sometimes, I am. So you could absolutely make up any number of hypos or point to any number of existing federal regulation in action I won't defend. It really is a philosophical divide in terms of the view from the start.

I dream of Obama twice a night w/ a change of clothes in between. But anyway Joe 6 you sound like a Newt supporter in the primary? Yes? No? Or perhaps Paul?

Absolutely no argument that federal regulation can get out of hand and be unwise, but state regulation for many industries in most states is a joke. It's like Washington without even pretending it isn't for sale or that it's based in some sort of public policy And also that last comment may be a bit telling where I differ from a lot of anti-Fed sentiment (and for the record I don't differ in all of it). I live in Florida. I've seen what goes on. I have friends in Tallahassee working with it. While Washington is bad, here the legislature is basically some maniac holding up a bill and saying "this bill is bad, vote against it" or "this bill is good, vote for it" and then everyone gets behind their boss and votes. Nobody cares what the thing says. Is that basically Washington? Yes. Is it still far more retarded somehow in Florida? Take my word for it, the answer is yes. There's only 1 party in our state anyway. Then there's our Governor, his regulation policy is pretty easy to understand. "No regulation on anything ever." There's a reason the man got rich by Solantic defrauding medicare and it wasn't anything $75 million of his own money couldn't compensate for in his 2010 campaign for Governor.

We can bump up some older topics to not hijack this b/c I like a good politics thread as much as the next man w/ out policy creeping in. I couldn't agree less with your take on doing nothing re:economy though I think that's a bold thing to even suggest but that is just me. ACA...I've been in like every ACA topic there is The last sentence wasn't the most serious part of the post if you didn't catch that...

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=BLM-2012-0001-0001 Rule still in comment period. Have at it 3rd

That really was my thought. The shouting and even tomato throwing you can brush of as a typical Egyptian mob, nothing personal. The Monica chants? That puts it over the top...

Well policy-by-policy it's in a bunch of other topics all over PPP. But to sum it up very briefly I like the job he's done w/ foreign policy, I'm not an ACA hater, and given a whole host of factors both economic/global/political (as blasphemous as this may sound) I really don't see how we're doing significantly worse than anybody could have realistically expected on the economy(and I think we're doing better than the path the GOP would have had us on). I think Obama has been a fair President who has had some weaknesses. I know that makes me an idiot to all you guys, but that's why in a nutshell. Basically, the private sector is doing fine and he's a dead sexy black man.

As I see it, Obama. And that's (trying) putting aside the fact I'll vote for him. On balance, people like Obama, people will be indifferent with Romney at best. Policy aside, and it is for most people, that's basically this election. I really don't see the referendum pitch overcoming Obama's natural advantage here and being the kind of thing to carry Romney to the Presidency. The debates will be important, but I really don't see how Romney is going to win this in a debate. I actually expect the debates to go pretty bad for Romney. Obama is a better speaker and he has a more populous message. It's going to be tough. I think it'll be pretty close but in the end I really don't think it's going to be as close as people think.

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...