I don't like the electoral college either.
I think it can discourage voters so they don't go out and vote.
One can feel like their vote won't count or is not needed
depending on their ideology and the color of their home state.
Add in busy life, nasty weather and very long lines for Presidential elections
they might just blow it off.
All focus is on the few precious swing states.
Please explain...
would it be because I have to pay more? My plan not as good?
You see, I don't think the Federal government should take care of me at any age.
I see....
you support a 90 year old women having to purchase her own insurance with a voucher...nice...I'm sure that will go smoothly...
I see...
you're ok with paying more for medical care when you in you later years, but whine about taxes now....
One of the more contentious moments of the debate came fairly early on. President Obama noted, "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut." The Republican disagreed, insisting more than once that his plan carries a far smaller, though undefined, price tag.
I imagine many viewers at home weren't sure who to believe. Even some fact-checkers were left confused -- CNN's John Berman said Obama's charge is "false" if "you take [Romney] at his word."
Of course, by that standard, no one, anywhere, has ever lied about anything -- if we take someone at their word, and apply no additional scrutiny, dishonesty is literally impossible.
But those interested in understanding the facts, the policy details are indisputable. As Jonathan Cohn explained overnight:
President Obama repeatedly described Romney's tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct. Romney has not given many details about his tax plan, but it's possible to extrapolate from his promises and the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, did just that. Crunching the numbers, they determined that his proposed rate cut would cost ... $5 trillion.
Last night, Romney simply asserted the figure is wrong, but up until yesterday, the Republican campaign has offered a different defense: the cost will be offset by closing tax loopholes and ending deductions.
This remains problematic, not just because Romney refuses to identify which loopholes and deductions, but because there aren't nearly enough loopholes and deductions to make up the difference.
What's more, in the debate, Romney cited "six other studies" that, according to him support the notion that he can slash tax rates without increasing the deficit or increasing the burden on the middle class. But that's wrong, too: "Those studies actually do not provide much evidence that Romney's proposal -- as sketchy as it is -- would be revenue neutral without making unrealistic assumptions."
Those inclined to "take [Romney] at his word" are living in a fantasy world where calculators don't exist.
One of the more contentious moments of the debate came fairly early on. President Obama noted, "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut." The Republican disagreed, insisting more than once that his plan carries a far smaller, though undefined, price tag.
I imagine many viewers at home weren't sure who to believe. Even some fact-checkers were left confused -- CNN's John Berman said Obama's charge is "false" if "you take [Romney] at his word."
Of course, by that standard, no one, anywhere, has ever lied about anything -- if we take someone at their word, and apply no additional scrutiny, dishonesty is literally impossible.
But those interested in understanding the facts, the policy details are indisputable. As Jonathan Cohn explained overnight:
President Obama repeatedly described Romney's tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct. Romney has not given many details about his tax plan, but it's possible to extrapolate from his promises and the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, did just that. Crunching the numbers, they determined that his proposed rate cut would cost ... $5 trillion.
Last night, Romney simply asserted the figure is wrong, but up until yesterday, the Republican campaign has offered a different defense: the cost will be offset by closing tax loopholes and ending deductions.
This remains problematic, not just because Romney refuses to identify which loopholes and deductions, but because there aren't nearly enough loopholes and deductions to make up the difference.
What's more, in the debate, Romney cited "six other studies" that, according to him support the notion that he can slash tax rates without increasing the deficit or increasing the burden on the middle class. But that's wrong, too: "Those studies actually do not provide much evidence that Romney's proposal -- as sketchy as it is -- would be revenue neutral without making unrealistic assumptions."
Those inclined to "take [Romney] at his word" are living in a fantasy world where calculators don't exist.
First you say his Tax Plan will cost 5 Trillion. Then you say you don't have all the facts about his plan. So how can this 5 trillion be a fact?
Do to time limits there was no way he could explain all the details, so he made it real simple for everyone to understand...This is what he said, with more people working there will be more tax money coming in. Simple.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
One of the more contentious moments of the debate came fairly early on. President Obama noted, "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut." The Republican disagreed, insisting more than once that his plan carries a far smaller, though undefined, price tag.
I imagine many viewers at home weren't sure who to believe. Even some fact-checkers were left confused -- CNN's John Berman said Obama's charge is "false" if "you take [Romney] at his word."
Of course, by that standard, no one, anywhere, has ever lied about anything -- if we take someone at their word, and apply no additional scrutiny, dishonesty is literally impossible.
But those interested in understanding the facts, the policy details are indisputable. As Jonathan Cohn explained overnight:
President Obama repeatedly described Romney's tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct. Romney has not given many details about his tax plan, but it's possible to extrapolate from his promises and the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, did just that. Crunching the numbers, they determined that his proposed rate cut would cost ... $5 trillion.
Last night, Romney simply asserted the figure is wrong, but up until yesterday, the Republican campaign has offered a different defense: the cost will be offset by closing tax loopholes and ending deductions.
This remains problematic, not just because Romney refuses to identify which loopholes and deductions, but because there aren't nearly enough loopholes and deductions to make up the difference.
What's more, in the debate, Romney cited "six other studies" that, according to him support the notion that he can slash tax rates without increasing the deficit or increasing the burden on the middle class. But that's wrong, too: "Those studies actually do not provide much evidence that Romney's proposal -- as sketchy as it is -- would be revenue neutral without making unrealistic assumptions."
Those inclined to "take [Romney] at his word" are living in a fantasy world where calculators don't exist.
First you say his Tax Plan will cost 5 Trillion. Then you say you don't have all the facts about his plan. So how can this 5 trillion be a fact?
Do to time limits there was no way he could explain all the details, so he made it real simple for everyone to understand...This is what he said, with more people working there will be more tax money coming in. Simple.
so...tell me, what are the details of his tax plan...? you seem to know...please share, you have plenty of time...
Colorado’s robust wind industry and 70,000 jobs in green goods and services could suffer if the Production Tax Credit for wind isn’t extended by the end of 2012. The presidential candidates differ on this, as well as other energy issues. Hopefully the Denver debate, scheduled to focus on the economy, will also address energy policies so vital to Colorado and the nation.
The United States is in the midst of significant changes in our energy outlook. We are producing and burning more natural gas for electricity, while reducing coal use. Domestic oil production is at a 15-year high while oil imports are at a 15-year low. Renewable electricity doubled over the past four years, while worldwide carbon pollution and the impacts of climate change grow. The next president will face these and other serious challenges posed by a changing energy world.
President Barack Obama’s first term featured the adoption of essential toxic and carbon pollution reduction measures to protect public health. In addition, he modernized fuel-economy standards for the first time in two decades, which also helped the auto industry; invested in energy efficiency and renewable electricity; and created tens of thousands of jobs.
Gov. Mitt Romney’s energy agenda couldn’t be more different. He would undo new safeguards from mercury, carcinogens, soot, and smog from industrial sources. He opposes the improved fuel-economy standards, and would continue and expand tax breaks for big oil companies, while openly disparaging clean energy and investments in wind power.
****
I find this stuff to be very important..right up there (maybe second to) the economy.
But when a campaign spokesman said last week that Congress should let a tax break for wind energy producers expire at the end of the year, some Republicans were concerned the candidate had gone too far.
Republican Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, noting that nearly 7,000 Iowans work in the wind industry, assailed the Romney campaign for "a lack of full understanding of how important the wind energy tax credit is for Iowa and our nation." Iowa's senior senator, Chuck Grassley, told reporters he didn't believe Romney really opposed the extension, and he joined five other GOP lawmakers in voting for it in the Senate Finance Committee.
But critics contend that Romney, who counts members of the fossil fuels industry as major financial supporters and relies on the head of an oil company as his energy adviser, has backed himself into a corner. "I think it's really a knee-jerk reaction to what this president has done," said Jeff Gohringer, a spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters. "He (Romney) is actually going to states and advocating cutting thousands of their jobs."
No remember hi's a great debater so we should just take him at hi's word Obama failed misserebly last night but i won't bet that he will again , he needs to stop fighting with kids gloves ...
(personally... I think the strategy all along was to stand back, let the doddering old man let the obnoxious Romney lie through the whole thing and then they have PLENTY of video of him contradicting himself to use against him for the next month. It was kinda brilliant. Even the right-leaning news has conceded that Romney pretty much bullshitted his way through the whole thing)
(personally... I think the strategy all along was to stand back, let the doddering old man let the obnoxious Romney lie through the whole thing and then they have PLENTY of video of him contradicting himself to use against him for the next month. It was kinda brilliant. Even the right-leaning news has conceded that Romney pretty much bullshitted his way through the whole thing)
I guess we'll be watching to see if this plays out...
I tried to google to find the right leaning calling it bullshit but I couldn't find any
maybe you can share that.
Do you get all your info from left leaning web sites?
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Please explain...
would it be because I have to pay more? My plan not as good?
You see, I don't think the Federal government should take care of me at any age.
I see....
you support a 90 year old women having to purchase her own insurance with a voucher...nice...I'm sure that will go smoothly...
I see...
you're ok with paying more for medical care when you in you later years, but whine about taxes now....
yes, I see...
That 90 year old lady grew up in an America where people valued self-reliance. She survived a Great Depression and WWII- I bet she could purchase health insurance with a Drogen's decoder wheel.
It's the Occupy Mom's Basement Generation that would be lost without Govt to nurse them.
But when a campaign spokesman said last week that Congress should let a tax break for wind energy producers expire at the end of the year, some Republicans were concerned the candidate had gone too far.
Republican Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, noting that nearly 7,000 Iowans work in the wind industry, assailed the Romney campaign for "a lack of full understanding of how important the wind energy tax credit is for Iowa and our nation." Iowa's senior senator, Chuck Grassley, told reporters he didn't believe Romney really opposed the extension, and he joined five other GOP lawmakers in voting for it in the Senate Finance Committee.
But critics contend that Romney, who counts members of the fossil fuels industry as major financial supporters and relies on the head of an oil company as his energy adviser, has backed himself into a corner. "I think it's really a knee-jerk reaction to what this president has done," said Jeff Gohringer, a spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters. "He (Romney) is actually going to states and advocating cutting thousands of their jobs."
You mean like Jeffrey Immelt as an economic advisor?
(personally... I think the strategy all along was to stand back, let the doddering old man let the obnoxious Romney lie through the whole thing and then they have PLENTY of video of him contradicting himself to use against him for the next month. It was kinda brilliant. Even the right-leaning news has conceded that Romney pretty much bullshitted his way through the whole thing)
So disillusioned that the only thing to do is call it BRILLIANT STRATEGY.
Since when is losing a brilliant strategy?
And Im interested in the link to right wing news calling Mitt a bullshitter.
But when a campaign spokesman said last week that Congress should let a tax break for wind energy producers expire at the end of the year, some Republicans were concerned the candidate had gone too far.
Republican Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, noting that nearly 7,000 Iowans work in the wind industry, assailed the Romney campaign for "a lack of full understanding of how important the wind energy tax credit is for Iowa and our nation." Iowa's senior senator, Chuck Grassley, told reporters he didn't believe Romney really opposed the extension, and he joined five other GOP lawmakers in voting for it in the Senate Finance Committee.
But critics contend that Romney, who counts members of the fossil fuels industry as major financial supporters and relies on the head of an oil company as his energy adviser, has backed himself into a corner. "I think it's really a knee-jerk reaction to what this president has done," said Jeff Gohringer, a spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters. "He (Romney) is actually going to states and advocating cutting thousands of their jobs."
You mean like Jeffrey Immelt as an economic advisor?
No, not at all, although I can see why you'd dig that up as a retort because simply there isnt a good reason for having the head of an oil company as an energy adviser. :nono:
But to get re-focused on the policies that Romney is introducing concerning our environment and energy, the head of an oil company as an energy adviser? :roll: Why is he so against green energy?
But when a campaign spokesman said last week that Congress should let a tax break for wind energy producers expire at the end of the year, some Republicans were concerned the candidate had gone too far.
Republican Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, noting that nearly 7,000 Iowans work in the wind industry, assailed the Romney campaign for "a lack of full understanding of how important the wind energy tax credit is for Iowa and our nation." Iowa's senior senator, Chuck Grassley, told reporters he didn't believe Romney really opposed the extension, and he joined five other GOP lawmakers in voting for it in the Senate Finance Committee.
But critics contend that Romney, who counts members of the fossil fuels industry as major financial supporters and relies on the head of an oil company as his energy adviser, has backed himself into a corner. "I think it's really a knee-jerk reaction to what this president has done," said Jeff Gohringer, a spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters. "He (Romney) is actually going to states and advocating cutting thousands of their jobs."
You mean like Jeffrey Immelt as an economic advisor?
No, not at all, although I can see why you'd dig that up as a retort because simply there isnt a good reason for having the head of an oil company as an energy adviser. :nono:
But to get re-focused on the policies that Romney is introducing concerning our environment and energy, the head of an oil company as an energy adviser? :roll: Why is he so against green energy?
Dug it out of my head. I enjoy politics, like a sport.
I say the head of an oil company is a great energy advisor. Id guess you would probably have some EPA
eco-warrior in there. Its just our differences. Im sure we agree on some things: PJ, at least.
But my goal for US energy is use it to our advantage, and become independent from foreign energy influences. Create jobs. Create wealth. Prosper. Drive my V8 SUV for $1.00/gallon.
The left sees US energy, and apologizes for it. Stifles it. Villifies oil companies, coal companies, etc.
The left sees US energy, and has the same reaction they have to most things: FEAR- "oh no, what about the environment?" "What about the spotted spiny-backed turd beetle?" Geez... they take it to extremes.
Dug it out of my head. I enjoy politics, like a sport.
I say the head of an oil company is a great energy advisor. Id guess you would probably have some EPA
eco-warrior in there. Its just our differences. Im sure we agree on some things: PJ, at least.
But my goal for US energy is use it to our advantage, and become independent from foreign energy influences. Create jobs. Create wealth. Prosper. Drive my V8 SUV for $1.00/gallon.
The left sees US energy, and apologizes for it. Stifles it. Villifies oil companies, coal companies, etc.
The left sees US energy, and has the same reaction they have to most things: FEAR- "oh no, what about the environment?" "What about the spotted spiny-backed turd beetle?" Geez... they take it to extremes.
You mean like Jeffrey Immelt as an economic advisor?
No, not at all, although I can see why you'd dig that up as a retort because simply there isnt a good reason for having the head of an oil company as an energy adviser. :nono:
But to get re-focused on the policies that Romney is introducing concerning our environment and energy, the head of an oil company as an energy adviser? :roll: Why is he so against green energy?
Dug it out of my head. I enjoy politics, like a sport.
I say the head of an oil company is a great energy advisor. Id guess you would probably have some EPA
eco-warrior in there. Its just our differences. Im sure we agree on some things: PJ, at least.
But my goal for US energy is use it to our advantage, and become independent from foreign energy influences. Create jobs. Create wealth. Prosper. Drive my V8 SUV for $1.00/gallon.
The left sees US energy, and apologizes for it. Stifles it. Villifies oil companies, coal companies, etc.
The left sees US energy, and has the same reaction they have to most things: FEAR- "oh no, what about the environment?" "What about the spotted spiny-backed turd beetle?" Geez... they take it to extremes.
Ok, yeah, I see where you're coming from...But, Romney's plans could take away thousands of jobs from people in wind and solar power. No, I wouldnt want an EPA eco warrior...just someone who can do the job without bias, extreme bias at that.
You just said it yourself: create jobs. Why in the world would someone oppose a growing industry of alternative energy such as wind power? Just because its in the same category as solar...because solydra is an easy picking point on Obama maybe?
And btw, im undecided...Im frustrated at both parties, and im starting at these debates and being neutral. Im not on the left. But if having extreme concern for the future of our planet tosses me in that category, i'll accept it. I dont want cheap gas and oil in exchange for a shit environment...thats not taking anything to extremes, its being cautious.
So Obama fires back today :?: Maybe he should have opened his mouth last night?
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Comments
I think it can discourage voters so they don't go out and vote.
One can feel like their vote won't count or is not needed
depending on their ideology and the color of their home state.
Add in busy life, nasty weather and very long lines for Presidential elections
they might just blow it off.
All focus is on the few precious swing states.
Depth of knowledge. Check
Winning.
Not if you have facts on your side...
Romney made it look easy.
he he...facts...fact like he'll cover preexisting conditions...ooops...http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012 ... nt-rom.php
and that he changed his tax plan....
anyhooo.... I take comfort in knowing that John Kerry won his first debate and he was a great president...wait, what?
Except his 'facts' were lies, and he isn't winning; he's behind in the poles and losing more ground every week.
I see....
you support a 90 year old women having to purchase her own insurance with a voucher...nice...I'm sure that will go smoothly...
I see...
you're ok with paying more for medical care when you in you later years, but whine about taxes now....
yes, I see...
About that $5 trillion tax cut...
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/ ... x-cut?lite
One of the more contentious moments of the debate came fairly early on. President Obama noted, "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut." The Republican disagreed, insisting more than once that his plan carries a far smaller, though undefined, price tag.
I imagine many viewers at home weren't sure who to believe. Even some fact-checkers were left confused -- CNN's John Berman said Obama's charge is "false" if "you take [Romney] at his word."
Of course, by that standard, no one, anywhere, has ever lied about anything -- if we take someone at their word, and apply no additional scrutiny, dishonesty is literally impossible.
But those interested in understanding the facts, the policy details are indisputable. As Jonathan Cohn explained overnight:
President Obama repeatedly described Romney's tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct. Romney has not given many details about his tax plan, but it's possible to extrapolate from his promises and the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, did just that. Crunching the numbers, they determined that his proposed rate cut would cost ... $5 trillion.
Last night, Romney simply asserted the figure is wrong, but up until yesterday, the Republican campaign has offered a different defense: the cost will be offset by closing tax loopholes and ending deductions.
This remains problematic, not just because Romney refuses to identify which loopholes and deductions, but because there aren't nearly enough loopholes and deductions to make up the difference.
What's more, in the debate, Romney cited "six other studies" that, according to him support the notion that he can slash tax rates without increasing the deficit or increasing the burden on the middle class. But that's wrong, too: "Those studies actually do not provide much evidence that Romney's proposal -- as sketchy as it is -- would be revenue neutral without making unrealistic assumptions."
Those inclined to "take [Romney] at his word" are living in a fantasy world where calculators don't exist.
Do to time limits there was no way he could explain all the details, so he made it real simple for everyone to understand...This is what he said, with more people working there will be more tax money coming in. Simple.
so...tell me, what are the details of his tax plan...? you seem to know...please share, you have plenty of time...
his comments were wrong....look a few posts above for details...
Thanks, and I also found this:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea ... rgy-policy
Colorado’s robust wind industry and 70,000 jobs in green goods and services could suffer if the Production Tax Credit for wind isn’t extended by the end of 2012. The presidential candidates differ on this, as well as other energy issues. Hopefully the Denver debate, scheduled to focus on the economy, will also address energy policies so vital to Colorado and the nation.
The United States is in the midst of significant changes in our energy outlook. We are producing and burning more natural gas for electricity, while reducing coal use. Domestic oil production is at a 15-year high while oil imports are at a 15-year low. Renewable electricity doubled over the past four years, while worldwide carbon pollution and the impacts of climate change grow. The next president will face these and other serious challenges posed by a changing energy world.
President Barack Obama’s first term featured the adoption of essential toxic and carbon pollution reduction measures to protect public health. In addition, he modernized fuel-economy standards for the first time in two decades, which also helped the auto industry; invested in energy efficiency and renewable electricity; and created tens of thousands of jobs.
Gov. Mitt Romney’s energy agenda couldn’t be more different. He would undo new safeguards from mercury, carcinogens, soot, and smog from industrial sources. He opposes the improved fuel-economy standards, and would continue and expand tax breaks for big oil companies, while openly disparaging clean energy and investments in wind power.
****
I find this stuff to be very important..right up there (maybe second to) the economy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-574 ... ontentBody
But when a campaign spokesman said last week that Congress should let a tax break for wind energy producers expire at the end of the year, some Republicans were concerned the candidate had gone too far.
Republican Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, noting that nearly 7,000 Iowans work in the wind industry, assailed the Romney campaign for "a lack of full understanding of how important the wind energy tax credit is for Iowa and our nation." Iowa's senior senator, Chuck Grassley, told reporters he didn't believe Romney really opposed the extension, and he joined five other GOP lawmakers in voting for it in the Senate Finance Committee.
But critics contend that Romney, who counts members of the fossil fuels industry as major financial supporters and relies on the head of an oil company as his energy adviser, has backed himself into a corner. "I think it's really a knee-jerk reaction to what this president has done," said Jeff Gohringer, a spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters. "He (Romney) is actually going to states and advocating cutting thousands of their jobs."
Krugman: "the moral equivalent of a lie."
Eric Fehrnstrom, top Romney advisor, admits that Romney wasn't truthful about his health care "plan."
New York Magazine: Romney's debate strategy is Lying.
Is this where i'm supposed to say "woot?"
I always get that wrong.
No remember hi's a great debater so we should just take him at hi's word Obama failed misserebly last night but i won't bet that he will again , he needs to stop fighting with kids gloves ...
I tried to google to find the right leaning calling it bullshit but I couldn't find any
maybe you can share that.
Do you get all your info from left leaning web sites?
Kerry was a Senator.
Romney is a Govenor.
Historically: big difference.
That 90 year old lady grew up in an America where people valued self-reliance. She survived a Great Depression and WWII- I bet she could purchase health insurance with a Drogen's decoder wheel.
It's the Occupy Mom's Basement Generation that would be lost without Govt to nurse them.
My money is on the 90 yr old anyday.
You mean like Jeffrey Immelt as an economic advisor?
Better than getting it from websites that bend you forward and screw away. :twisted:
So disillusioned that the only thing to do is call it BRILLIANT STRATEGY.
Since when is losing a brilliant strategy?
And Im interested in the link to right wing news calling Mitt a bullshitter.
:roll:
So glad I got out of Cali when I did.
I don't understand the lingo these days....
No, not at all, although I can see why you'd dig that up as a retort because simply there isnt a good reason for having the head of an oil company as an energy adviser. :nono:
But to get re-focused on the policies that Romney is introducing concerning our environment and energy, the head of an oil company as an energy adviser? :roll: Why is he so against green energy?
Dug it out of my head. I enjoy politics, like a sport.
I say the head of an oil company is a great energy advisor. Id guess you would probably have some EPA
eco-warrior in there. Its just our differences. Im sure we agree on some things: PJ, at least.
But my goal for US energy is use it to our advantage, and become independent from foreign energy influences. Create jobs. Create wealth. Prosper. Drive my V8 SUV for $1.00/gallon.
The left sees US energy, and apologizes for it. Stifles it. Villifies oil companies, coal companies, etc.
The left sees US energy, and has the same reaction they have to most things: FEAR- "oh no, what about the environment?" "What about the spotted spiny-backed turd beetle?" Geez... they take it to extremes.
:( :(
You just said it yourself: create jobs. Why in the world would someone oppose a growing industry of alternative energy such as wind power? Just because its in the same category as solar...because solydra is an easy picking point on Obama maybe?
And btw, im undecided...Im frustrated at both parties, and im starting at these debates and being neutral. Im not on the left. But if having extreme concern for the future of our planet tosses me in that category, i'll accept it. I dont want cheap gas and oil in exchange for a shit environment...thats not taking anything to extremes, its being cautious.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II