PBS has a $475 million dollar budget, only 15% of which comes from the taxpayers .Sesame Workshop (the organization behind Sesame Street) is raking in an average of over $50 million per year in merchandizing . Cut the public funding immediately .
|
PBS has a $475 million dollar budget, only 15% of which comes from the taxpayers .Sesame Workshop (the organization behind Sesame Street) is raking in an average of over $50 million per year in merchandizing . Cut the public funding immediately .
With that thinking then why do the oil companies get subsidies?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
They shouldn't and wouldn't if I ran things .
The oil company subsidies are millions upon millions more then PBS gets - that's where you should focus you efforts.
Neither should all the failing "green" companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Yea but that's new, the oil subsidies have been going on for decades. How come you guys haven't had any success getting those stopped?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Pigs at the trough, there is a certain mentality in politics where if you feed the pigs at the trough all this lovely green stuff flows back to you
Yea but that's new? And that makes it better how? FYI, Romney said Exxon's tax breaks are "on the table". We'll see.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
He also said that 47% of the country were lazy losers who will never take responsibility because they pay no taxes. My 87 year old mom is still pissed. Through her pill cutters away but don't tell on me!
I believe he more than displayed his compassion at the debate. He destroyed Team O's narrative carefully crafted narrative. Team O's newest strategy fits right in with the Nickelodeon/Sesame Street offensive, "nana nana boo boo, Romney's a lying poo poo!"
What compassion? He doesn't know what that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hey that's the same strategy used here too!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
One major difference, the element of truth is on my side.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Governor Romney hasn't yet told us what his truth is.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
That's what all the unrepentant liars say!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What part of my response did you not understand ? But let me put this into perspective .Renewable energy companies have received 1000 times the subsidies that oil companies do, per kilowatt-hour of energy produced.So where is the dollar better spent ?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Again... I oppose subsidies to private industry . It is a liberal economic 'pick winners and losers concept that runs against my free market economy ideas .
Unfortunately that's never going to happen for either party as long as their pockets are lined with corporate donor money.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Federally Funded Green Energy Projects ? Not Such A Failure After All - Gas 2
It is easy to say something has failed but what does failed mean? Well, if charted goals were set and not met than that would be a failure. Certainly if a business closed or filed for bankruptcy that would also be a failure. However, when Republicans say that Obama's clean energy campaign has failed they tend to site failed or struggling business and not the industry itself. Yes, some budding green businesses took federal loans and ended up closing shop. But for the few that failed many more prospered and overall the green energy industry is doing well on not only in America but on a global scale as well.
You do know the green industry goes beyond just solar panels don't you and the failure rate of green companies is 5% in the US.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/06/opinio...obs/index.html
Good article Tal should be more of Romney's facts get checked along with his arithmetic
When you can win a debate with energy and style(?), but the facts are NON existent, that's truly winning ugly, but some don't care about facts. But the FACTS are coming out.
The facts are you get what you deserve so if you just accept what you are told and don't check you will be deceived.
Who knows if Romney really can bring a different approach, we are now four years on from a catastrophy, so you either stay the course or go off at a tangent. What you would like to do and what you can do are often very different. Obama couldn't have anticipated the impact of the Gulf oil crisis, it put a big didn't in the recovery, same with Afghanistan, who would have thought four years ago that would still be going on. Hell, he is still talking to Iran the way GWB was, no change there. Running another gunboat up the river isn't going to solve that
I've already proved Team O lied about Al Qaeda and the Benghazi attacks (which is probably why our Press Secretary hasn't had a press briefing for over two weeks).Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
So where did Romney lie during the debate, which is their latest excuse for Obama getting thoroughly thrashed?
Mitt Romney tells 533 lies in 30 weeks, Steve Benen documents themQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
At Last Night's Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes | ThinkProgress
The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest Lies | Politics News | Rolling Stone
Fact Check: Romney's comparison of past, present Navy pointless - CNN.com
FACT CHECK: Romney spins one-sided story on trade, defense cuts in foreign policy speech - The Washington Post
Fact-checking the Romney campaign | Bluffton Today
Fact Checking the Presidential Debate in Denver - ABC News
So does this mean that such things as the so-called 'war on women' and attacks on the First Amendment are nothing more than a little bit of 'enthusiasm' on the part of the other side?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Tut
The first is irrelevant to the question I asked and out of the actual news sources that aren't overtly partisan opinion pieces you have some spin. On both sides. Nice try.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Hello again, Steve:
I have a little lie that Romney told.. If I TELL you about it, though, you'll deny it's a lie, and you'll tell me about Obama's lies...
I'm not going to participate. I just HOPE the country's electorate is smart enough to pick the right guy.
Here's LIE you can tell. If Romney wins, he's going to appoint at least ONE right wing Supreme Court Justice, and that'll spell the END to Roe v Wade. Now, I know you don't understand the mechanics of the law, but take MY word for it, an abortion case WILL, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY work it's way to the high court.
I've heard you say, that if presented with an opportunity to END the HATED abortion, YOU say they'll blink.
Tell me again. I LOVE that story..
excon
Again as with NK's complain, fact vs. fiction. The "war on women" is entirely manufactured to propagate that siege mentality. An ultrasound bill is not a "war on women." Voting against the redundant Lily Ledbetter Act is not a "war on women." Not wanting to pay for contraceptives for Sandra Fluke, a graduate from a school whose grads start at over $150k, is not a "war on women."Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Perhaps you recall George Stephanopoulos' gotcha question at the New Hampshire Republican primary debate.
Does anyone remember Romney's answer (I know, NK will say he lied)?Quote:
Stephanopoulos, a former senior advisor in the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton, asked Romney if he believes “states have the right to ban contraception — or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”
No state wants to ban contraceptives, no candidate wanted to ban contraceptives, yet this was the question asked followed by months of fear mongering about how Republicans want to take us back to the dark ages.Quote:
“You’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so — you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?” Romney asked, with a hint of incredulity.
And FYI, I'm sure he's just lying again but Romney said there would be no abortion legislation if elected.
So what's the beef? The only "war on women" by Republicans is in the left's imagination.Quote:
"There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," he told the Des Moines Register in an interview posted on the newspaper's website.
On the other hand, the attack on the first amendment is real. When this administration unilaterally forces religious employers to violate their beliefs or cease their ministry as it is it's no joke. Ex and Tal can whine all they want about how churches shouldn't be a business but I've more than proven the church was into medicine and education long before the government intruded, and I would imagine you already knew that.
Why would Romney go totally against his deep held religious beliefs?
Why would Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi? We're electing a president, not a pastor.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
In Romney's case it would be both.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Ok, I guess maybe I DO need to explain the mechanics of the court... I BELIEVE Romney.. There will be NO legislation banning abortion or contraceptives... But, there's enough legislation out there for a case to be challenged in court, and for it to work it's way up to the Supreme Court...
Let's just take some of the recently enacted laws that require abortion clinics to have so many nails per square foot, and so many parking places per visitor... I'm NOT quoting the law exactly, of course, but the intent of these laws is to CLOSE down abortion clinics.. Let's say THAT law will be challenged in court, as I'm SURE it will be.
Now, the law, of course, deals with nails and parking places for buildings. It's NOT about abortion, per se - or IS IT? Now, you'd think that the Supreme Court would be limited, therefore, to ruling on nails and parking places... But, that ISN'T how the law works..
I submit, that with a NEW right wing justice, when THAT case, and THAT case alone, hits the Supreme Court, it will give them an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade...
You say, when GIVEN that opportunity, they'll blink. I cannot imagine where you get that notion. Assuming you believe me, and maybe you don't, but you can't use the excuse that they'll NEVER even HAVE the OPPORTUNITY to overturn it. The truth is, they'll have AMPLE opportunity.
excon
Obviously you based that on his record as governor and money-grubbing CEO.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I think your response would be promoting that "siege mentality" Tut mentioned. You really seem to be wasting a lot of time this year worrying about conspiracies instead of reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
One of us is deluded, that's for sure.
excon
You should also put an as optiln lol romeny's an idiot and obama cool's or allow more options. Romeny might be but obam's better and is a good president but people needs to know that he can't fix everything on his own and some of his good attempts have been blocked. He also just can't on focus one one section and yes I'm Canadian
Dude, it ain't me.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Let me add to the mythical Democrat wars to create a siege mentality... the war on Sesame Street. WaPo gives that 4 Pinocchios.
Team O is pretty desperate.
I guess they must be, with Mittens big lead and assured win.
They kept Biden secluded for 6 days to prep for tonights debate .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:20 AM. |