dayman

They basically get at political/media lies/ridiculousness. The democrats have the presidency and for that year had both house and senate. If nothing else that alone sort of calms their propensity for those sort of things in that time period...what even handed approach would you like the show to have taken? Over the past few year certain elements that line up on the right just leave way more on the table to call ridiculous behavior...and certainly in that year. Even the oft referenced Occupy movement wasn't going then...

Last episode was the best yet in terms of the actual development of the show. As for the hard line liberal agenda...sure that is fair. But it's important to note..it's really focused on the radical elements...the tea party...the conspiracy theories and stuff...it hasn't necessarily been "anti-conservative." As the main character says over and over "I'm a registered Republican." Now take it for what it's worth...very little...but the premise is really more anti-radical GOP as opposed to anti-GOP generally speaking.

Just a disclaimer here this all politics I'm talking. Not policy or the candidates value etc.... The Romney campaign is clearly getting worked at the moment. So it's easy to say this now, and there is a long road ahead and Obama-camp will make mistakes and get pounced on and Romney-camp will also make more mistakes going forward...but as of right now it really seems kind of like the Romney campaign was not ready. The part highlighted above is what he obviously needs to do. But the narrative is nonexistent at the moment. The tax thing has completely gotten away from him, and as they always say citing Kerry if you get defined negatively early then when you come with whatever your pitch is later people tune out. Romney had a hard time putting people away in the GOP primary but was able to kind of stick around and drop strategic money bombs and ultimately out last all those candidates...who were IMO (and most people's I think) weak. He was sort of, by definition, a weak candidate himself based on his ability to deal with that group. But it was brutal, he refined his skills and you would think at worst he would be capable going forward with good political strategy. But this is sort of strange and tell me if you think I'm wrong. Does the campaign seem unprepared? They're sort of leaking nonsense about the VP, now talking about moving the pick up early to change the subject, and really the push back from those interviews regarding the tax issues did nothing. When you know you are going to distance yourself from Mass Governor tenure and that the Olympics is only going so far...you put business achievements/private sector success at the for front. Fair enough what else can you do. But this is post-'08. You have to know that can be made a weakness and you must be ready for heavy hitting in an effort to make it a weakness. So when the most predictable punch from Obamas campaign comes and comes hard, from a serious campaign that can spend on your level...you have to be ready to deal with it. If you know it's going to hurt and you aren't going to release more taxes and can't get into a debate delving into the necessary reality of outsourcing or whatever...then you should probably be ready to counter quickly with what you were talking about 3rd. But yet...it hasn't come. They need to roll out a more defined, specific and articulable vision. Obama has rolled out his counter to the "economy sucks, referendum" with his focus on the middle class angle/build for the future angle...and then came hard with the negatives on top of that. Romeny campaign response? Seems to have been at this point to just sort of eat it hoping they can endure it and get through it but they aren't really doing anything effective to minimize the damage or even roll out their own competing "vision." They seem to still be in referendum mode. There's always a way out from the fire and it's early but the campaign seems unprepared and is in this moment getting worked politically. I'm not sure what to think other that they didn't really foresee this and thus are not prepared to counter it effectively on the spot? Maybe they thought the Bain attacks failed and they got through them a few weeks back and thus let their guard down a bit and got caught sleeping? All in all, it just seems this was handled badly and it's hard to imagine they didn't have some sort of more defined plan.

Whatever size you are wearing and I would be sure to explain how you need to buy the more expensive model b/c as you know, the less expensive model aren't designed to withstand the chemicals used to maintain a golf course and as such will last what we golf shoe salesman would call "1 golf season." It's the way we justify the fact that they are designed to fall apart after a few (10/12) rounds or so. Of course that isn't true, but it worked about 1/3 of the time. Anyone over the age of 30, it worked. And if you bought Nike, God help you. You are too cool to care about price you sell yourself those shoes.

Oh ya eh? Not breaking 80 a bad day? Remind me not to play with you. Golf just isn't my game truth be told. Years ago but I worked a trailer style driving range 3 years through undergrad. 3 =years and I still will never be a great golfer. No course, just a trailer-based driving range w/ lights open until 11pm. Could swing an iron off the porch (w/ a fake grass carpet) and !@#$ around on the putting green but no room for driver while on the clock (would hit sides of trailer-porch fence thing and couldn't get too far off desk). Driver has always come and gone. I actually think swinging off that porch while working is what got me messed up for life. Got damn good with the putter but it comes and goes depending on the day still, the iron never leaves me. Never got too reliable with the driver but I'm hitting a good patch now. Needless to say despite my tenure there breaking 80 would be a great day. God knows my old boss/golf-pro wouldn't teach **** he had me doing weird ass exercises he called "gravity golf" to straighten me out off the tee...never did 1 single thing but mess me up more. It involved me moving around and stepping into it like I was happy Gilmore. How people paid him I will never know. Anyway, golf aside if there's one thing I could do to this day if I had to it's sell a pair of footjoys.

1) You are creeping me out. Yes, wine w/ the girlfriend stop spying. IDK wtf is going on 2) Good old North Florida at the moment although been around. Jaguar country. In other words, the part w/ no Obama fans. You would like it here.

Nope slicing. Working my way to a hook. For now I'm playing great and dominating those ass hole friends (except the one awesome friend...who we all have !@#$ him) for whom I paid for beer all this time.

Come to me 3rd. Come back to me. Come join me. You can still stay on the right side of the line, but you can come closer to me. And btw I've never even lived in Buffalo although I've visited family many times there and I may be wrong, but when he talked about fighting fires with multiple fire fighting companies/organizations...for some reason I thought of Buffalo.

I agree with the topic title. And will lobby for that policy at my job. Only b/c I can somehow now hit the driver straight all of the sudden. But if you can't drive, you just can't leave work. No point. You aren't scoring.

We could and we should. I argue with you a lot but at this point I'll call this one discussion. At this point I'm limited though the girlfriend is watching trueblood and demands I pay some limited amount of attention that qualifies as "watching with her" so I'm on fly by status for the immediate future.

Negative works. Period. That's been politics for centuries.

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.