Referring to the American left.
Referring to the American left.
Hope is the denial of reality
Oh, those rightwingers?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I want to cut Big Bird.
Who in the hell would consider that a positive thing to say in a debate?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
So hyper-partisans such as yourself have something to feel smug about.
Hope is the denial of reality
Principal. If enough people like it then it can be paid for like any other program. (Private sector) If enough people don't like it... well then what's the problem with getting rid of it?Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I want to cut Big Bird.
Who in the hell would consider that a positive thing to say in a debate?
The irony is that Sesame Street only gets 7% of its funding from the government. Dishonesty from both sides on this issue (which, quite frankly, is not important).
Hope is the denial of reality
Cool lets ditch that 7%.
Let's be honest here: the only reason Republicans don't want to fund NPR is because NPR is left-wing.
Hope is the denial of reality
If Rush Limbaugh had 7% of his costs covered by the government I'd be in support of cutting that funding too. Its not a partisan issue for me - the government shouldn't fund stuff like this.
Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive
-@neiltyson
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
A billion here a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
- Attributed to Everett Dirksen
Mitt Romney Gangnam Style
Thats a false quoteA billion here a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
- Attributed to Everett Dirksen
and the government doesn't spend anywhere near a billion on pbs anyway.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Just because it's not much doesn't mean you shouldn't cut something, though. But it doesn't make a good example, or a good policy, if that's your only plan, of course.Thats a false quote
and the government doesn't spend anywhere near a billion on pbs anyway.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
None of the Obama fanboys are going to mention the fact that Obama is widely believed to have lost the debate? I guess it's better to deflect attention. Substance has never been the strong point of Obama supporters.
Which, of course, it's not. The same Obama fanboys that attack Romney for the Sesame Street crap also attack him for wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare.
Hope is the denial of reality
Reportedly. That's specifically why I wrote attributed to him rather than giving him credit for it. Its a very good quote anyway.Thats a false quote
and the government doesn't spend anywhere near a billion on pbs anyway.
How often have you taken a large budget that's unsustainably leaking and balanced it? What did you do when you did that? Its something I have had to do many times, knowing that if I wasn't able to balance the budget everyone could lose their jobs, or on a personal level it would cause horrible consequences and a debt spiral. I wasn't able to succeed once and had the horrible job of making everyone redundant as the business closed - I tell you that sucked tremendously and was the most horrible business experience I've ever faced, but sadly the government doesn't face that sort of real-life pressure that families and businesses all over do every day. When you do face that pressure, you don't mock any form of savings you can find.
If I found discretionary spending of 0.012% of overall expenditure that could be dropped without making people redundant or cutting service then I would do. You show a real public sector mentality to laugh so frivolously at that.
See above. The real purpose of this nonsense is to deflect attention from Obama's poor showing and to have the media fixate on something that makes Romney looks bad.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm not saying that small cuts shouldn't be healed, but out of all the areas the government bleeds money, Romney attacked public broadcasting. Then later repeated 2010's lie of the year, that speaks volumes for his position.
Our Big Bird discussion started not even an half hour into the debate. I don't think the moderator starting losing control till about 45 minutes in.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Not going to mention the fact that most of the "loss of control" happened because Obama wouldn't shut up and ended up speaking 4 minutes longer than Romney?
Hope is the denial of reality
It wasn't. It was just an example Romney gave of a non-critical program that he'd cut.
Didn't see the debate, was it any good?
Yeah I figured, wasn't meant against Romney - some politicians tend to only use small things like that for talking points while ignoring the larger issues, which I find annoying, which is why I mentioned itt attack Romney for the Sesame Street crap also attack him for wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I think for most people, that answer is largely based on the viewer's political preferences. There seems to be a strong consensus that Obama lost, so...
Did Obama lose because he was shit or because Romney was good?
Or because we'd come to expect so little from Romney that not falling off the stage was considered a success?
Romney really seemed on top of things, to me. As the debate went on, he seemed to throw Obama off his game. So Romney was good, and Obama seemed to become worse as the debate dragged on. I've developed an expectation that Obama would come off better when placed in front of a microphone - that's one of his biggest strengths as a politician - so I really didn't expect this result. It'll be interesting to see how Obama changes his methods in the next debate.
What are the costs of slashing govt funding of NPR?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Given NPR already gets 93% of its funding from other sources, I imagine quite minimal as far as the federal government is concerned.
Get rid of all corporate subsidies.
Isn't Obama's strength more in speeches than debates? I forgot how the old debates went 4 years ago, though.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I watched the debate. Well, I only watched the first half hour or so --- before Romney's behaviorisms and the split screen mode irritated me so much that I stopped "watching" and preferred to listen only.
It was a crappy format with a non-moderator moderator. Romney did finally come out as an aggressive defender of his "policies", even though it was more of the Etch-A-Sketch and fuzzy math he can't run from. He said he's got five sons, and is used to the tactic of being told something over and over again as if it's true, even when it's not....and proceeded to do the same thing. He won't change SS or Medicare (but he will), he won't raise taxes on the middle class (but he will), he won't give bigger tax breaks to the wealthy (but he will). His plans aren't the same as Ryan's (but they are), he won't say his vision is Bush/Cheney v 3.0 (but it is), and he makes it sound like Free Enterprise is the magic fairy dust we need to GROW our way out of this mess. Without giving any specifics.
Obama came off as demure or even timid. He didn't act very "hungry" for a second term. He let Lehrer and Romney slide over disputed facts, and didn't take the opportunity to force Romney on anything specific, or how Romney's new positions are different than when he was Gov of MASS and/or nominee during the primaries. So many issues weren't even mentioned, or were so loosely addressed they were meaningless.
A twitter meme said it was Twitchy vs Geeky. Our political discourse at work?
As a nation, we don't spend much on "subsidizing" free information. Or the Arts, for that matter. We've already lost "free" television (in favor of cable/satellite fee-for-service). Library funding is being cut as part of school budget cuts at municipal and state levels. Sure, we can cut federal funding for anything with PUBLIC in its name. But the unintended costs mean only private funding --- or corporate funding --- own the air waves, control the information, and public educational entertainment.
Sesame Street and Big Bird, brought to you by McDonald's chicken McNugget Happy Meals? No thanks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote