Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadline)   Group plans "Million Muppet March" in Washington D.C. to protest Mitt Romney's threats to take funding away from PBS   (deadline.com ) divider line 253
    More: Amusing, Group Plan, Washington DC, Jim Lehrer, Sesame Workshop, Big Bird, taxpayer money, PBS, objections  
•       •       •

3555 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Oct 2012 at 11:59 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



253 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-13 08:40:07 AM  
This is just getting silly now.
 
2012-10-13 09:58:55 AM  
thesignalinthenoise.files.wordpress.com

What happened to Romney just looking like a dumbass with the "Big Bird" comment? Is this really what we want to pounce on? Pick what ridiculous fabrication from a punk-ass mouth you're above harping on, Obama camp.
 
2012-10-13 10:09:06 AM  
I smell a publicity stunt. Plus this "group" consists of only two people, Subby.
 
2012-10-13 10:20:27 AM  
This story has no legs.
 
2012-10-13 10:34:42 AM  
It was my understanding that Sesame Street is sponsored by the letter Q and the number 6
 
2012-10-13 10:43:13 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

Approves
 
2012-10-13 11:14:23 AM  
If it's tied to a broader movement for something, I'd support it. But please, no more of these "fight for sanity" waste-of-time protests. We have so many real issues to protest and it's so hard to get Americans in the streets. I love PBS but it would be a waste to protest just for that.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-13 11:16:38 AM  
blogs.denverpost.com 

It certainly symbolizes what he thinks about education and spending money to help the non-wealthy.
 
2012-10-13 11:22:25 AM  
It obscures the larger issue that you can't pay for his tax plan by fishing through the national couch cushions for loose change.
 
2012-10-13 11:23:11 AM  

coco ebert: If it's tied to a broader movement for something, I'd support it. But please, no more of these "fight for sanity" waste-of-time protests. We have so many real issues to protest and it's so hard to get Americans in the streets. I love PBS but it would be a waste to protest just for that.


I was at the rally for sanity. It was huge and it was positive and fun. Its only purpose, if the name didn't tip you off, was to show just how common not being a shrieking cretin is, despite the news media's insistence of the opposite.
 
2012-10-13 11:35:59 AM  

thamike: coco ebert: If it's tied to a broader movement for something, I'd support it. But please, no more of these "fight for sanity" waste-of-time protests. We have so many real issues to protest and it's so hard to get Americans in the streets. I love PBS but it would be a waste to protest just for that.

I was at the rally for sanity. It was huge and it was positive and fun. Its only purpose, if the name didn't tip you off, was to show just how common not being a shrieking cretin is, despite the news media's insistence of the opposite.


I understand that, but what has been the long-term effect of such a protest? It didn't spark a movement, it didn't help make politics more level-headed (wasn't that the broader critique?)- ok, I guess it was just an opportunity to have fun. I guess that's cool, but it's so hard to get feet on the ground, I wish we were out there protesting austerity, the militarization of our police force, our f*cked-up foreign policy, or widespread attempts to disenfranchise voters, but I'm just a libtard anyway, what do I know...
 
2012-10-13 11:40:14 AM  

coco ebert: I understand that, but what has been the long-term effect of such a protest? It didn't spark a movement, it didn't help make politics more level-headed (wasn't that the broader critique?)- ok, I guess it was just an opportunity to have fun. I guess that's cool, but it's so hard to get feet on the ground, I wish we were out there protesting austerity, the militarization of our police force, our f*cked-up foreign policy, or widespread attempts to disenfranchise voters, but I'm just a libtard anyway, what do I know...


Protests aren't immediately significant unless they are specific. The rally for sanity was not about protesting anything. It was just a reminder that most of the country is not actually made up of psychotic blowhards who want to shoot anything with a question mark.
 
2012-10-13 11:57:37 AM  

thamike: coco ebert: I understand that, but what has been the long-term effect of such a protest? It didn't spark a movement, it didn't help make politics more level-headed (wasn't that the broader critique?)- ok, I guess it was just an opportunity to have fun. I guess that's cool, but it's so hard to get feet on the ground, I wish we were out there protesting austerity, the militarization of our police force, our f*cked-up foreign policy, or widespread attempts to disenfranchise voters, but I'm just a libtard anyway, what do I know...

Protests aren't immediately significant unless they are specific. The rally for sanity was not about protesting anything. It was just a reminder that most of the country is not actually made up of psychotic blowhards who want to shoot anything with a question mark.


I think I just have to accept the fact that people in this country don't feel things are bad enough to leave their homes and gather together to petition their government. They will get together for a large celebration like that rally, but not to protest. *shrugs*
 
2012-10-13 12:05:34 PM  
Obama's performance was so bad that this is all they have now.
 
2012-10-13 12:05:54 PM  

coco ebert: thamike: coco ebert: I understand that, but what has been the long-term effect of such a protest? It didn't spark a movement, it didn't help make politics more level-headed (wasn't that the broader critique?)- ok, I guess it was just an opportunity to have fun. I guess that's cool, but it's so hard to get feet on the ground, I wish we were out there protesting austerity, the militarization of our police force, our f*cked-up foreign policy, or widespread attempts to disenfranchise voters, but I'm just a libtard anyway, what do I know...

Protests aren't immediately significant unless they are specific. The rally for sanity was not about protesting anything. It was just a reminder that most of the country is not actually made up of psychotic blowhards who want to shoot anything with a question mark.

I think I just have to accept the fact that people in this country don't feel things are bad enough to leave their homes and gather together to petition their government. They will get together for a large celebration like that rally, but not to protest. *shrugs*


Not trying to be a dick but are you doing anything to spread your message and get people into the streets? Or just lamenting the fact that we don't on the Internet?
 
2012-10-13 12:06:09 PM  

coco ebert: I think I just have to accept the fact that people in this country don't feel things are bad enough to leave their homes and gather together to petition their government. They will get together for a large celebration like that rally, but not to protest. *shrugs*


OWS was a protest. Not sure what it meant, but it was a protest.
 
2012-10-13 12:06:19 PM  
Close down all PBS TV stations and auction the spectrum to the cell phone companies.
 
2012-10-13 12:06:22 PM  
I'm about the biggest anti-government-spending person there is (a Libertarian mostly), but I like PBS. I consider it like schools-- these are things I'm OK with.

Bailing out banks (Quantitative Easing, currently QE3) like Obama and the Fed is rubber-stamping? That is what has already taken down the United States economy.
 
2012-10-13 12:06:50 PM  

coco ebert: If it's tied to a broader movement for something, I'd support it. But please, no more of these "fight for sanity" waste-of-time protests. We have so many real issues to protest and it's so hard to get Americans in the streets. I love PBS but it would be a waste to protest just for that.


Actually, it's one of the very few channels worth the funding... that and NPR.
 
2012-10-13 12:07:25 PM  

notmtwain: This story has no legs.


I feel some manipulation going here of an invisible hand of the market place.
 
2012-10-13 12:07:52 PM  
They do realize that sales from "Tickle me Elmo" alone far outstrip any public funding Sesame Street gets, right?
 
2012-10-13 12:08:52 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Obama's performance was so bad that this is all they have now.


Your nose is so far up Romney's butt, you can smell what he had for breakfast
 
2012-10-13 12:09:01 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Obama's performance was so bad that this is all they have now.


1.bp.blogspot.com

TUESDAY.

 
2012-10-13 12:10:17 PM  
If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".
 
2012-10-13 12:10:46 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Obama's performance was so bad that this is all they have now.


That's not what the fact checkers are saying.
 
2012-10-13 12:11:08 PM  

limboslam: They do realize that sales from "Tickle me Elmo" alone far outstrip any public funding Sesame Street gets, right?


PBS gets profits from Tickle Me Elmos sales? Color Me Dubious.
 
2012-10-13 12:11:09 PM  
Didn't Sesame Street explicitly ask that Democrats stop using Big Bird in a partisan way? Because doubling down like this undercuts all the criticism about "Republicans using Musician X's music".
 
2012-10-13 12:12:57 PM  

Whodat: If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".


Good Lord, is he still alive?
 
2012-10-13 12:13:03 PM  
I don't care who you vote for - but I honestly do question the value of government funding going to something like PBS.

If people really love crap that is on PBS then it doesn't need government funding. People will support it or they'll sell ads or do whatever else.
If people don't really love crap that is on PBS that we shouldn't waste government funding on it.

I know, I know, there are lots of things more serious on the budget than this; but that doesn't change my opinion on it. Guys are making 300k a year to move their hands inside a puppet. That may or may not be a fair wage for such things; but I sure as don't see any need to fund it with public dollars. Let the market decide.

I went overseas and saw the crap they produce here with funds extorted from people with the 'TV License Tax'. Absolute crap TV with the crappy publicly funded actors making many, many times the normal wage. If they're really worth that amount of money there is no need to forcefully collect it from tax payers.

There are ENDLESS numbers of TV shows for children that are also educational that are don't funded with tax payer dollars.
It's a waste.
 
2012-10-13 12:13:08 PM  

Whodat: If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".


You're getting Above Middle Class confused with the Wealthy 1%. Having to follow a faulty narrative out of an inexplicable sycophantic sense of duty has its disadvantages.
 
2012-10-13 12:14:12 PM  
"it does seem like we might get close to the biggest ever assemblage of puppets in one place and probably the most ever puppets marching on Washington," says Bellavia.

Not counting, of course, when members of Congress enter the chambers.
 
2012-10-13 12:14:42 PM  
Do the protesters really think the only thing keeping Big Bird on the air is the PBS subsidy?
 
2012-10-13 12:15:04 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Guys are making 300k a year to move their hands inside a puppet.


media.salon.com

And some are making a hell of a lot more.
 
2012-10-13 12:15:11 PM  
"Four years ago, President Obama said that if you don't have a record to run on, 'you make a big election about small things.' With 23 million people struggling for work, incomes falling, and gas prices soaring, Americans deserve more from their president."
 
2012-10-13 12:15:37 PM  
Let it go you dumb farks.

If you want to focus on the debate then focus on how Romney lied throughout the entire debate or how he flip flopped on pretty much every position he's held so who knows what they'll get if they vote for Romney.

Move on to some farking content and focus on the farking issues.
 
2012-10-13 12:15:43 PM  
 
2012-10-13 12:18:09 PM  
Oh the puppeteer for Big Bird makes 314k a year? If you have a problem with it, go be a puppeteer for 40 years as a giant bird.
 
2012-10-13 12:20:13 PM  

Gunny Highway: coco ebert: thamike: coco ebert: I understand that, but what has been the long-term effect of such a protest? It didn't spark a movement, it didn't help make politics more level-headed (wasn't that the broader critique?)- ok, I guess it was just an opportunity to have fun. I guess that's cool, but it's so hard to get feet on the ground, I wish we were out there protesting austerity, the militarization of our police force, our f*cked-up foreign policy, or widespread attempts to disenfranchise voters, but I'm just a libtard anyway, what do I know...

Protests aren't immediately significant unless they are specific. The rally for sanity was not about protesting anything. It was just a reminder that most of the country is not actually made up of psychotic blowhards who want to shoot anything with a question mark.

I think I just have to accept the fact that people in this country don't feel things are bad enough to leave their homes and gather together to petition their government. They will get together for a large celebration like that rally, but not to protest. *shrugs*

Not trying to be a dick but are you doing anything to spread your message and get people into the streets? Or just lamenting the fact that we don't on the Internet?


I've been involved in various protest activities, yeah, such as Occupy and my union. It is possible to do both, you know- be involved and b*tch on the interwebs.
 
2012-10-13 12:21:10 PM  

Obama4Life: coco ebert: If it's tied to a broader movement for something, I'd support it. But please, no more of these "fight for sanity" waste-of-time protests. We have so many real issues to protest and it's so hard to get Americans in the streets. I love PBS but it would be a waste to protest just for that.

Actually, it's one of the very few channels worth the funding... that and NPR.


I agree. I shouldn't say it would be a waste. If it wins back proper funding for PBS, then I guess I would support that.
 
2012-10-13 12:21:31 PM  

thamike: Whodat: If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".

You're getting Above Middle Class confused with the Wealthy 1%. Having to follow a faulty narrative out of an inexplicable sycophantic sense of duty has its disadvantages.


To make the top 1 percent, a household must have AGI of $343,927 or more.

Read more: Top 1 Percent: How Much Do They Earn? | Bankrate.com http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx#ixzz29CF Vd7tk

Facts are messy things.
 
2012-10-13 12:21:35 PM  
So now we can conflate Obama supporters with Muppet's that have hands up their bottoms?

This will end well.

/Muahahaha
 
2012-10-13 12:22:08 PM  
Does Sesame Street receive that money? or does the corporation for public broadcasting?

All the reseach I have done shows that in 1981, the federal government withdrew its funding and the CTW turned to, and expanded, other revenue sources, including its magazine division, book royalties, product licensing, and foreign broadcast income.

Article is misleading. That money goes to public broadcasting as a whole. In fact it costs the CTW many millions more to produce the show than they charge to PBS to broadcast it. It is one of those win / win situations for the public and the producers of the show. The ROI on education that it provides is unmatched.

Not to mention this isn't about the budget, it's about shutting down PBS and NPR because republicans don't like science, education and the arts. Those are liberal things...
 
2012-10-13 12:23:03 PM  

bonefish: Oh the puppeteer for Big Bird makes 314k a year? If you have a problem with it, go be a puppeteer for 40 years as a giant bird.


I don't have a problem with what anyone can earn so long as they are doing it....

1.) Legally
2.) Not with my tax dollars

I'm not against having public workers. We need them for certain things. But we need to be vigilant that we are paying them a fair wage and we need to be certain that we need them. Individual people can spend their money on whatever they want. The government should be very efficient and only pay for things it needs (and only at a fair wage).

I have seen little evidence than the American people benefit from having public funding go towards paying a puppeteer. I also suspect that 314k is well above the median pay for a puppeteer, but I'm unconvinced that, even if we as a society need public funding to hire puppeteers, benefit from having high paid puppeteers over moderately paid ones.
 
2012-10-13 12:24:45 PM  

coco ebert: Gunny Highway: coco ebert: thamike: coco ebert: I understand that, but what has been the long-term effect of such a protest? It didn't spark a movement, it didn't help make politics more level-headed (wasn't that the broader critique?)- ok, I guess it was just an opportunity to have fun. I guess that's cool, but it's so hard to get feet on the ground, I wish we were out there protesting austerity, the militarization of our police force, our f*cked-up foreign policy, or widespread attempts to disenfranchise voters, but I'm just a libtard anyway, what do I know...

Protests aren't immediately significant unless they are specific. The rally for sanity was not about protesting anything. It was just a reminder that most of the country is not actually made up of psychotic blowhards who want to shoot anything with a question mark.

I think I just have to accept the fact that people in this country don't feel things are bad enough to leave their homes and gather together to petition their government. They will get together for a large celebration like that rally, but not to protest. *shrugs*

Not trying to be a dick but are you doing anything to spread your message and get people into the streets? Or just lamenting the fact that we don't on the Internet?

I've been involved in various protest activities, yeah, such as Occupy and my union. It is possible to do both, you know- be involved and b*tch on the interwebs.


Right on.
 
2012-10-13 12:25:36 PM  

smitty04: "Four years ago, President Obama said that if you don't have a record to run on, 'you make a big election about small things.' With 23 million people struggling for work, incomes falling, and gas prices soaring, Americans deserve more from their president."


So vote for the guy famous for leeching his acquisitions dry!

/later on we'll have a pity party and say no one could have seen it coming
//just like 1987 and 2008.
 
2012-10-13 12:26:08 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Guys are making 300k a year to move their hands inside a puppet


Lobbyists are a discussion for another thread.
 
2012-10-13 12:27:32 PM  
Just balance the budget and lower the United States national debt, Democrats and/or Republicans. Enough on this big bird and gay marriage trivia.

Oh, you can't, especially since 2008?

Let's try the Libertarian approach, since the Democrats and Republicans have joined forces to tank the economy.
 
2012-10-13 12:28:20 PM  
static.ddmcdn.com

How Obama supporters work

/Hot like sweaty palms
 
2012-10-13 12:28:32 PM  

Gunny Highway: coco ebert: Gunny Highway: coco ebert: thamike: coco ebert: I understand that, but what has been the long-term effect of such a protest? It didn't spark a movement, it didn't help make politics more level-headed (wasn't that the broader critique?)- ok, I guess it was just an opportunity to have fun. I guess that's cool, but it's so hard to get feet on the ground, I wish we were out there protesting austerity, the militarization of our police force, our f*cked-up foreign policy, or widespread attempts to disenfranchise voters, but I'm just a libtard anyway, what do I know...

Protests aren't immediately significant unless they are specific. The rally for sanity was not about protesting anything. It was just a reminder that most of the country is not actually made up of psychotic blowhards who want to shoot anything with a question mark.

I think I just have to accept the fact that people in this country don't feel things are bad enough to leave their homes and gather together to petition their government. They will get together for a large celebration like that rally, but not to protest. *shrugs*

Not trying to be a dick but are you doing anything to spread your message and get people into the streets? Or just lamenting the fact that we don't on the Internet?

I've been involved in various protest activities, yeah, such as Occupy and my union. It is possible to do both, you know- be involved and b*tch on the interwebs.

Right on.


The world needs another "Drum Circle".
 
2012-10-13 12:28:50 PM  
 
2012-10-13 12:29:21 PM  
images1.wikia.nocookie.net

Classic Obama rally?
 
2012-10-13 12:30:19 PM  
images2.wikia.nocookie.net

Sunday morning talk show discussing Obama
 
2012-10-13 12:30:49 PM  
Looks like Obama is still hiding behind Big Bird - our fearless leader.
 
2012-10-13 12:31:12 PM  
images1.wikia.nocookie.net

SEIU member interviewed about Obama
 
2012-10-13 12:31:57 PM  
i.ebayimg.com

NYT columnist thinking about Obama policies
 
2012-10-13 12:32:36 PM  
OK. I'm done
 
2012-10-13 12:33:09 PM  

Whodat: To make the top 1 percent, a household must have AGI of $343,927 or more.


So you are basing your claim that Carroll Spinney is "very close" to being in the "top 1%" on annual household income?
 
2012-10-13 12:33:50 PM  

tomWright: Classic Obama rally?


tom, STAHP.
 
2012-10-13 12:35:11 PM  

tomWright: [images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 596x397]

Classic Obama rally?


Obama, Romney, who cares what anybody wants? Think about why Beeblebrox was the most successful Prez the Galaxy ever had, and it don't matter if your favorite wins, he's not really in charge anyway.
 
2012-10-13 12:36:26 PM  
tomWright:

Your trolling is bad and you should feel bad.
 
2012-10-13 12:36:27 PM  

tomWright: [images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 596x397]

Classic Obama rally?


Isn't that Paul Ryan, second from the right?

timeswampland.files.wordpress.com

Yeah, everyone else looks like a muppet.

/I must be the REAL muppet for seeing the muppet in others!
 
2012-10-13 12:36:46 PM  
How much money are they spending on this march, in comparison to how much PBS gets from the government per year?
 
2012-10-13 12:39:34 PM  
We already had OWS marches. Those were a bunch of muppets.
 
2012-10-13 12:39:55 PM  

Optimal_Illusion: tomWright: [images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 596x397]

Classic Obama rally?

Obama, Romney, who cares what anybody wants? Think about why Beeblebrox was the most successful Prez the Galaxy ever had, and it don't matter if your favorite wins, he's not really in charge anyway.


www.naderlibrary.com

/And they're prescription
 
2012-10-13 12:41:14 PM  
Knowing the Liberals/Democraps....in this Million Muppet March....they will make sure Bert is raping Ernie....Miss Piggy sodomizes Kermit....Gonzo gropes some old ladies....And Elmo is flashed by Fozzie...

This "Big Bird" stuff is getting stupid
 
2012-10-13 12:42:13 PM  

thamike: tomWright: [images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 596x397]

Classic Obama rally?

Isn't that Paul Ryan, second from the right?

[timeswampland.files.wordpress.com image 600x400]

Yeah, everyone else looks like a muppet.

/I must be the REAL muppet for seeing the muppet in others!


He does look kind of Muppet-ish, doesn't he?
 
2012-10-13 12:43:16 PM  
it's as legitimate as buying biden a trans-am, so..... no harm, no foul.
 
2012-10-13 12:44:05 PM  
Oh God. This is what the Obama camp is continuing to kvetch about? Trotting out Muppets isn't going to win the election. At this point, no one gives a shiat about PBS except for the few people who think this is a legitimate political issue.
 
2012-10-13 12:44:56 PM  
screw PBS. they should have kept their B**** mouths shut.
 
2012-10-13 12:45:50 PM  
I hate that this is what people are choosing to focus on. Too difficult to rebute any of those lies he told, amirite?
 
2012-10-13 12:47:22 PM  
Democrats need to get off the Muppets thing. It's not going to change a damn thing in the election, and it looks amateur to try to pump this up into a big issue. And 5-year-olds don't vote.

Yes, Romney's threat to cut the Corporation from Public Broadcasting (and the 0.01% of the federal budget that it represents) was ridiculous and unserious, unbefitting of someone supposedly serious about tackling the budget in a substantive way.

But Democrats need to attack Romney's budget ideas on the whole, and not lose the forest for this one tree.
 
2012-10-13 12:48:34 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: bonefish: Oh the puppeteer for Big Bird makes 314k a year? If you have a problem with it, go be a puppeteer for 40 years as a giant bird.

I don't have a problem with what anyone can earn so long as they are doing it....

1.) Legally
2.) Not with my tax dollars

I'm not against having public workers. We need them for certain things. But we need to be vigilant that we are paying them a fair wage and we need to be certain that we need them. Individual people can spend their money on whatever they want. The government should be very efficient and only pay for things it needs (and only at a fair wage).

I have seen little evidence than the American people benefit from having public funding go towards paying a puppeteer. I also suspect that 314k is well above the median pay for a puppeteer, but I'm unconvinced that, even if we as a society need public funding to hire puppeteers, benefit from having high paid puppeteers over moderately paid ones.


My two year old who learned the entire alphabet before 1 year of age and counted to 20 by 18 months begs to differ but, feel free to cut, cut away and the people who are really really good at what they do for children. He should've been watching Sponge Bob all this time. I'm sure a Nicktoon kid would get that headstart. The stuff that happens on PBS kids wouldn't happen for profit. You're right, investing in the future is bullshiat anyway.
 
2012-10-13 12:53:18 PM  

vpb: It certainly symbolizes what he thinks about education and spending money to help the non-wealthy.


The cartoon is bull....women wouldn't be allowed unless they were bringing coffee.
 
2012-10-13 12:58:34 PM  
dailyhabitz.com 

Guy Smiley - personality = Mitt Romney
 
2012-10-13 01:01:19 PM  
'Amusing', subby?

I think you meant 'asinine'...
 
2012-10-13 01:01:41 PM  
I completely understand why Obama supporters would want to focus on Big Bird instead of Benghazi.

/Thanks Joe!
 
2012-10-13 01:05:22 PM  

soy_bomb: I completely understand why Obama supporters would want to focus on Big Bird instead of Benghazi.


Because we don't get a hard-on when we find out that Americans were murdered?
 
2012-10-13 01:11:06 PM  

thurstonxhowell: soy_bomb: I completely understand why Obama supporters would want to focus on Big Bird instead of Benghazi.

Because we don't get a hard-on when we find out that Americans were murdered?


Or don't get all happy when young Soldiers die in the name of oil
 
2012-10-13 01:22:40 PM  
Romney might kill Sesame Street, but Obama already killed NASA.
 
2012-10-13 01:23:45 PM  
No kids, so I don't really have a dog in this race, but if Sesame Workshop didn't get their annual $7 million dollar subsidy, they would just shut down? They couldn't find a sponsor(s) interested in marketing to an impressionable demo that never changes the channel?

I guess that's why networks like Nickelodeon and Disney are so unprofitable.
 
2012-10-13 01:23:59 PM  

bonefish: Fark_Guy_Rob: bonefish: Oh the puppeteer for Big Bird makes 314k a year? If you have a problem with it, go be a puppeteer for 40 years as a giant bird.

I don't have a problem with what anyone can earn so long as they are doing it....

1.) Legally
2.) Not with my tax dollars

I'm not against having public workers. We need them for certain things. But we need to be vigilant that we are paying them a fair wage and we need to be certain that we need them. Individual people can spend their money on whatever they want. The government should be very efficient and only pay for things it needs (and only at a fair wage).

I have seen little evidence than the American people benefit from having public funding go towards paying a puppeteer. I also suspect that 314k is well above the median pay for a puppeteer, but I'm unconvinced that, even if we as a society need public funding to hire puppeteers, benefit from having high paid puppeteers over moderately paid ones.

My two year old who learned the entire alphabet before 1 year of age and counted to 20 by 18 months begs to differ but, feel free to cut, cut away and the people who are really really good at what they do for children. He should've been watching Sponge Bob all this time. I'm sure a Nicktoon kid would get that headstart. The stuff that happens on PBS kids wouldn't happen for profit. You're right, investing in the future is bullshiat anyway.


I'm not against investing in the future.
I'm also not against public education.

But I do see a whole industry of educational everything imaginable for children, including TV shows, that manage to exist without government funding. I also believe it raises questions of equality, to be perfectly honest. I believe public services should be available to anyone - if you are arguing that educational TV shows need to exist to educate our children, that implicitly means the government needs to provide televisions OR you are supporting a system that puts poor children at a significant disadvantage.

Why should your child get to learn his or her ABCs from Big Bird - just because you can afford a TV?
Admittedly, this is less of a problem now than it was in the 70s.

Having said all that, I'd be more likely to support public funding for purely educational programming.
 
2012-10-13 01:28:48 PM  

legion_of_doo: Romney might kill Sesame Street, but Obama already killed NASA.


Considering the economy is still in the tank because of Georgie Boy, this is not a totally bad idea.

Space will still be there, but we need to take care of other matters, first
 
2012-10-13 01:39:57 PM  
So how many here donate to PBS?
I give $50 a year.
WGBH in Boston (or any other major market) won't be affected by a loss of Gov. $ but some PBS station in East Jesus might.
As I Understand It, The Fed $ Mostly go to pay for underfunded stations. I'd like to think the slack-jawed yokels can count and know the ABCs.

/bertisevil.jpg
 
2012-10-13 01:49:22 PM  

Obama4Life: Nemo's Brother: Obama's performance was so bad that this is all they have now.

Your nose is so far up Romney's butt, you can smell what he had for breakfast


Are you a troll or the next advent of Linux_Yes?
 
2012-10-13 01:53:39 PM  
artoftheprank.com
 
2012-10-13 01:54:32 PM  
To be fair, he is removing Sesame Street's indecency
 
2012-10-13 01:56:40 PM  
So happy to see this. It helps me forget about our unprotected, sodomized and murdered ambassador in Benghazi.
 
2012-10-13 01:57:02 PM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: notmtwain: This story has no legs.

I feel some manipulation going here of an invisible hand of the market place.


Do they just hop right on, or does it take a few drinks first?

/also, yes, shortest 'march' ever if were just muppets
//perhaps more of a 'shuffle'
 
2012-10-13 01:57:29 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: If people really love crap that is on PBS then it doesn't need government funding. People will support it or they'll sell ads or do whatever else.


The whole point of PBS not running ads is so it doesn't end up like TLC. It's not as if we need another channel full of tawdry "reality" shows.
 
2012-10-13 01:57:34 PM  

BullBearMS: Well, yes. It's certainly not important to protest against the decade old endless war in Afghanistan or bullshiat like this:

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.


Please tell me you don't think Romney would end that.

Education is important. I mean, FFS, I never want to witness something like I witnessed in college, ever again. I know I've told the story on Fark before, but here it goes.

One day, I actually listened to a girl getting a basic U.S. Geography lesson in my dorm. She had no concept of where the Mississippi River was.

Ok, that's dumb, but no big deal, right?

This girl was in Air Force ROTC. If all went well, she was on the fast track to becoming an officer.

The guy? If he ever comes back to the United States, he'll have problems. He's vocal about how he feels about Jews, and one of his Weenerss when the USS Cole got hit by a suicide bomber in Yemen, he pointed at the screen and said, excitedly, "Hey, that's my old apartment building!" He wasn't kidding.

Education isn't just something nice that those evil socialists want to do; it's a matter of national security. Part of that is educational programming. PBS still has it. The former NASA Channel has Honey Boo-Boo. The private sector only does as much educational programming as the government forces them to do. There's a lot of homes out there where kids might not have access to a computer, tablet, smart phone, MP3 player, books, regular meals (nutritious or otherwise) or even at times heat, but their parent(s) almost certainly have a TV.

In the area I live in, we have a decent PBS station, with some kind-hearted donors. If the Feds cut CPB funds as part of their vendetta against NPR (don't kid yourselves, that's 99% what this is about) that station will go dark. I learned a lot of basics from Sesame Street, Electric Company (the one with Morgan Freeman), 3-2-1 Contact, Reading Rainbow, Readit, and so on.

Once we get past this, maybe we could get around to listening to the Pentagon, who has pointed out they need healthy, intelligent young men and women more than they need tanks right now.
 
2012-10-13 02:00:11 PM  
Are people still pretending that Sesame Street gets federal funding? It makes hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Ken Burns documentaries and "learn to make shiatty paintings" shows might be in danger from federal cuts, but Big Bird will be just fine.
 
2012-10-13 02:00:38 PM  
why does Fark replace 'time' with 'his Weeners'?
 
2012-10-13 02:02:39 PM  

Whodat: If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".


How many times do we have to go through this? PBS does not own Sesame Street. PBS does not produce Sesame Street. PBS does not get the licensing revenue from Sesame Street. Sesame Street is produced by Sesame Workshop, which in fact does make nice money from the licensing. PBS stations pay Sesame Workshop for the right to air Sesame Street. They're separate entities.
 
2012-10-13 02:04:06 PM  
Hrmm. This reminds me of once upon a time when some asshat politician tried to cut PBS funding.

The proper dem response would be to bring this up and claim Rmoney is no better than Tricky Dick. 'Course today's retarded GOP would refer to Mr. Rogers as a pink commie liberal socialist death panel sekrit mooslin. No way in hell they'll suffer what's really good for the children and actual (not to mention non-secular) family values .
 
2012-10-13 02:04:21 PM  

BATMANATEE: Are people still pretending that Sesame Street gets federal funding? It makes hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Ken Burns documentaries and "learn to make shiatty paintings" shows might be in danger from federal cuts, but Big Bird will be just fine.


The whole issue is that, when that one mean old NPR poo-poo head said not-nice things about Tea Partiers, vendetta was declared. The only way to ensure that NPR never gets one red cent of tax dollars from the Federal government was to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Sesame Street will be fine. The OTA PBS stations? Not so much. I know the one here will go dark, and they play educational programming nearly all day. Like I said above, there are kids around here who might not even have decent food or heat at home, but they're likely to have a TV, so that source of education outside of their ignorant-ass parents pea brains will be lost.

I honestly credit Sesame Street with helping me learn to read at a pretty decent level by the time I was 4.
 
2012-10-13 02:07:53 PM  
Compete in the open market like everyone else or go off the air.

It's that simple.
 
2012-10-13 02:09:35 PM  
I grew up on PBS television before I started Kindergarten and I really don't recall much benefit if any at all I got from the channel. This is what we're talking about right? Education for kids before they're in school? It was a lot of borderline psychedelic entertainment that had letters and numbers interwoven in it and pushed off as "educational." I got far more educational value playing "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego" for a week than the entire 3 years I watched PBS programming before I started school. The only show I ever learned anything on was Bill Nye the Science Guy but that was a while after I got started with school and had some basic science understanding in the first place

Where I got my head start was my mom was a 4th grade teacher who had one of those Apple II computers with a lot of educational software. That was where I learned how to read and learned addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division

Its a bloated argument for a TV station that is almost self sufficient already
 
2012-10-13 02:12:27 PM  
Does PBS really need govt funding? They rake in millions in licensing fees, donations, etc and pay out crazy high salaries....can't imagine what the govt gives adds much to the bottom line.
 
2012-10-13 02:35:21 PM  

rrife: Does PBS really need govt funding? They rake in millions in licensing fees, donations, etc and pay out crazy high salaries....can't imagine what the govt gives adds much to the bottom line.


How many times do we have to go through this? PBS does not own Sesame Street. PBS does not produce Sesame Street. PBS does not get the licensing revenue from Sesame Street. Sesame Street is produced by Sesame Workshop, which in fact does make nice money from the licensing. PBS stations pay Sesame Workshop for the right to air Sesame Street. They're separate entities.
 
2012-10-13 02:42:33 PM  

theMightyRegeya: BullBearMS: Well, yes. It's certainly not important to protest against the decade old endless war in Afghanistan or bullshiat like this:

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Please tell me you don't think Romney would end that.


Romney didn't promise to put an end to the practice of throwing people into military prisons like Gitmo forever without a trial.

Obama did.

Repeatedly.
 
2012-10-13 02:43:37 PM  
One million people with a hand up their ass to visit city full of people with head up their ass. This could get interesting...or maybe even kinky.
 
2012-10-13 02:45:40 PM  

Whodat: If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".


Top 25%, if I remember correctly.

And PBS doesn't own Big Bird or Sesame Street; they're owned by an independent non-profit called the Children's Television Workshop, who (in good capitalist fashion) sell the program to PBS.
 
2012-10-13 02:47:20 PM  

coco ebert:

I understand that, but what has been the long-term effect of such a protest? It didn't spark a movement, it didn't help make politics more level-headed (wasn't that the broader critique?)- ok, I guess it was just an opportunity to have fun. I guess that's cool, but it's so hard to get feet on the ground, I wish we were out there protesting austerity, the militarization of our police force, our f*cked-up foreign policy, or widespread attempts to disenfranchise voters, but I'm just a libtard anyway, what do I know...


The 60s-70s era of "movements" has gone, and as a culture we seem to have lost the patience and sense of purpose to create and maintain a unified front that strives to change policies using grassroots support. These days, we seem to expect that (in order to be taken seriously) a movement must strive to become an political party that competes with (or supports one of) the Dem and Repub parties.

Part of the reason OWS fell apart was that people expected them to behave like a political party rather than just a group of people trying to create awareness of corruption between Wall Street and the government. Instead of hammering our elected officials about the issues OWS raised, we hammered OWS for not presenting us with a leader (candidate for office), a party platform, detailed plans for correcting the situation, etc.
 
2012-10-13 02:49:25 PM  
 
jvl
2012-10-13 02:50:44 PM  
Without Government funding, how will my local PBS station afford to make programs by Deepak Chopra that explain how the universe really works?
 
2012-10-13 03:03:41 PM  
There isn't enough television. The gov't needs to subsidize it.
 
2012-10-13 03:08:13 PM  
randomjsa (farkied: "Holy fnck you're an idiot." - Nina_Hartley's_Ass): Compete in the open market like everyone else or go off the air.

It's that simple.


Yes, down with Nova, we need more Honey Boo Boo.

Remember, boys and girls:

* $450 million for the CPB: zOMG SOOOOOOOOCIALISM!

* Unlimited funds to blow schitt up in Iran: USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!
 
2012-10-13 03:10:20 PM  

Diogenes: It obscures the larger issue that you can't pay for his tax plan by fishing through the national couch cushions for loose change.


Bust way I have ever heard this described. I am going to start using this.
 
2012-10-13 03:10:51 PM  
I do think this is an important issue. The Republicans want to eliminate very very very small parts of the federal budget that benefit everyone and massively expand the Defense Department. We could put an American on Mars if NASA had 5% of the money we borrowed and threw away in the Middle East.
 
2012-10-13 03:11:04 PM  

Elephantman: derp


1) It was your guy who brought up Big Bird.

2) Yes, we should bomb the schitt out of Libya. Why should The Terraists® have all the enemies there?
 
2012-10-13 03:14:16 PM  
The only thing government should spend money on is bombing people overseas. It's what Jesus would want.
 
2012-10-13 03:17:01 PM  

LargeCanine: There isn't enough television. The gov't needs to subsidize it.


The more PBS has to beg for money in the open market, the worse their programming gets. There's no way in hell they'd let Carl Sagan or Julia Childs on the air today, as neither of them had "marketable personalities". There's no way in hell they'd show Monty Python or Fawltey Towers, as they're not mainstream.

/longs for the PBS of my youth, back when they were weird
//ends up watching a lot of programming from the BBC.
 
2012-10-13 03:21:06 PM  

gimmegimme: I do think this is an important issue. The Republicans want to eliminate very very very small parts of the federal budget that benefit everyone and massively expand the Defense Department.


Obama tried to keep us in Iraq past the end of the treaty Bush negotiated for total withdrawal

He has kept us in Afghanistan (we've been there for over a decade now) as well.

The Democrats continued to fund the wars when they had nearly complete control of Congress.

If the Democrats wanted to end the wars, they have had every opportunity to do so.

They don't want to. This was the last election cycle's concern troll. Just as Gitmo was.

Both parties favor profitable, profitable endless war. If you do not, then vote third party.
 
2012-10-13 03:22:40 PM  

BullBearMS: gimmegimme: I do think this is an important issue. The Republicans want to eliminate very very very small parts of the federal budget that benefit everyone and massively expand the Defense Department.

Obama tried to keep us in Iraq past the end of the treaty Bush negotiated for total withdrawal

He has kept us in Afghanistan (we've been there for over a decade now) as well.

The Democrats continued to fund the wars when they had nearly complete control of Congress.

If the Democrats wanted to end the wars, they have had every opportunity to do so.

They don't want to. This was the last election cycle's concern troll. Just as Gitmo was.

Both parties favor profitable, profitable endless war. If you do not, then vote third party.


When, pray tell, did Democrats have free reign? Please point out where in the Constitution it states that 60 votes are necessary to pass legislation.
 
2012-10-13 03:22:45 PM  
Faux news reports after the event that there was no where near 1 million Muppets. As the registrar of Muppets shows there is only 1500 Muppets in existence. Any more and its obviously a conspiracy, or they cloned them!?!?! Thats why there was so many Kermits!!!!
Its like Santa Claus in the malls. He was sitting for pics at the north end, then you see him at the south end sitting for pics, so you run back t the other end and hes there too. At home we have no chimney, so does he come down the sewer vent pipe?
Barbie has no job but has millions of dollars in stuff, so did she write a book or run for vice president to get the money for all that stuff? Ken has no penis so why does barbie keep him around? If he can't procreate, he need to be disposed of now!

/All this and more on Faux and Friends. The show that treats its viewers as per their intelligence quotient. Even a two year old doesn't shiat on their ice cream and eat it like its chocolate covered ice cream.
 
2012-10-13 03:25:41 PM  

BullBearMS: theMightyRegeya: BullBearMS: Well, yes. It's certainly not important to protest against the decade old endless war in Afghanistan or bullshiat like this:

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Please tell me you don't think Romney would end that.

Romney didn't promise to put an end to the practice of throwing people into military prisons like Gitmo forever without a trial.

Obama did.

Repeatedly.


Uhh.... what about Georgie Bush? Oh that's right, you completely ignore the many times he violated the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.
 
2012-10-13 03:25:51 PM  
Democrats and muppets, two groups equally used to having somebody's arm up their asses controlling their every movement.

images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-10-13 03:28:55 PM  

randomjsa: Compete in the open market like everyone else or go off the air.

It's that simple.


I hate knowing my kids will grow up in a world where they will have to contend with people like you. You offer nothing of substance or value to anything or anyone. You spew stupid wherever and whenever possible. Consider me trolled, because every time I see you out here, I get angry. Shove whatever response you might have up your free marketed ass.
 
2012-10-13 03:29:34 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I don't care who you vote for - but I honestly do question the value of government funding going to something like PBS.

If people really love crap that is on PBS then it doesn't need government funding. People will support it or they'll sell ads or do whatever else.
If people don't really love crap that is on PBS that we shouldn't waste government funding on it.

I know, I know, there are lots of things more serious on the budget than this; but that doesn't change my opinion on it. Guys are making 300k a year to move their hands inside a puppet. That may or may not be a fair wage for such things; but I sure as don't see any need to fund it with public dollars. Let the market decide.

I went overseas and saw the crap they produce here with funds extorted from people with the 'TV License Tax'. Absolute crap TV with the crappy publicly funded actors making many, many times the normal wage. If they're really worth that amount of money there is no need to forcefully collect it from tax payers.

There are ENDLESS numbers of TV shows for children that are also educational that are don't funded with tax payer dollars.
It's a waste.


Right.....except for those kids who live in houses where they can't AFFORD cable......

And PBS isn't just kids shows, they also do a lot to introduce the arts.
 
2012-10-13 03:30:03 PM  

OscarTamerz: Democrats and muppets, two groups equally used to having somebody's arm up their asses controlling their every movement.

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 300x295]


I thought cons were mad that left-wing folks are radicals who are on their own in the American ideological ecosystem.
 
2012-10-13 03:30:18 PM  

Whodat: If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".


You have no idea how much it costs to produce a television series do you?
 
2012-10-13 03:30:49 PM  

gimmegimme: BullBearMS: gimmegimme: I do think this is an important issue. The Republicans want to eliminate very very very small parts of the federal budget that benefit everyone and massively expand the Defense Department.

Obama tried to keep us in Iraq past the end of the treaty Bush negotiated for total withdrawal

He has kept us in Afghanistan (we've been there for over a decade now) as well.

The Democrats continued to fund the wars when they had nearly complete control of Congress.

If the Democrats wanted to end the wars, they have had every opportunity to do so.

They don't want to. This was the last election cycle's concern troll. Just as Gitmo was.

Both parties favor profitable, profitable endless war. If you do not, then vote third party.

When, pray tell, did Democrats have free reign? Please point out where in the Constitution it states that 60 votes are necessary to pass legislation.


Are you telling me that 59 Democrats in the Senate can't block funding for the wars?
 
2012-10-13 03:35:00 PM  

legion_of_doo: Romney might kill Sesame Street, but Obama already killed NASA.


Oh, yeah, NASA's really suffering right now. 0.5% of the federal budget (down by about 1 tenth of a percent from 2001) and mean old Obama refocused it for things like Mars exploration and the Orion MPCV. Just look at the team at NASA Jet Propulsion laboratory. They are obviously miserable.

www.csmonitor.com

F*cking ZeroFartBongo, that traitor.
 
2012-10-13 03:35:04 PM  

BullBearMS: gimmegimme: BullBearMS: gimmegimme: I do think this is an important issue. The Republicans want to eliminate very very very small parts of the federal budget that benefit everyone and massively expand the Defense Department.

Obama tried to keep us in Iraq past the end of the treaty Bush negotiated for total withdrawal

He has kept us in Afghanistan (we've been there for over a decade now) as well.

The Democrats continued to fund the wars when they had nearly complete control of Congress.

If the Democrats wanted to end the wars, they have had every opportunity to do so.

They don't want to. This was the last election cycle's concern troll. Just as Gitmo was.

Both parties favor profitable, profitable endless war. If you do not, then vote third party.

When, pray tell, did Democrats have free reign? Please point out where in the Constitution it states that 60 votes are necessary to pass legislation.

Are you telling me that 59 Democrats in the Senate can't block funding for the wars?


I'd answer your question but Senator Vitter is filibustering. (I'm guessing he's getting some late-afternoon delight.)
 
2012-10-13 03:36:26 PM  

OscarTamerz: Democrats and muppets, two groups equally used to having somebody's arm up their asses controlling their every movement.

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 300x295]


What is it with you guys and fisting?
 
2012-10-13 03:36:42 PM  

Obama4Life: BullBearMS: theMightyRegeya: BullBearMS: Well, yes. It's certainly not important to protest against the decade old endless war in Afghanistan or bullshiat like this:

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Please tell me you don't think Romney would end that.

Romney didn't promise to put an end to the practice of throwing people into military prisons like Gitmo forever without a trial.

Obama did.

Repeatedly.

Uhh.... what about Georgie Bush? Oh that's right, you completely ignore the many times he violated the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.


So it was bad when Bush did it?

Stop making all liberals look like complete farking retards.

Something is either good or bad regardless of who does it.

Obama is as much a lying ass flip flopper as Romney. He ran for office promising to put an end to this indefinite detention bullshiat.

Now that he's in office, he's once again fighting for it.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-10-13 03:36:59 PM  
If they use Louis Farrakhan's concept of "Million Man March" to count the crowd, then only about a dozen people need attend.
 
2012-10-13 03:40:31 PM  

wambu: If they use Louis Farrakhan's concept of "Million Man March" to count the crowd, then only about a dozen people need attend.


You're saying the Tea Party adopted Farrakhan's counting methodology?
 
2012-10-13 03:46:01 PM  

gimmegimme: BullBearMS: gimmegimme: BullBearMS: gimmegimme: I do think this is an important issue. The Republicans want to eliminate very very very small parts of the federal budget that benefit everyone and massively expand the Defense Department.

Obama tried to keep us in Iraq past the end of the treaty Bush negotiated for total withdrawal

He has kept us in Afghanistan (we've been there for over a decade now) as well.

The Democrats continued to fund the wars when they had nearly complete control of Congress.

If the Democrats wanted to end the wars, they have had every opportunity to do so.

They don't want to. This was the last election cycle's concern troll. Just as Gitmo was.

Both parties favor profitable, profitable endless war. If you do not, then vote third party.

When, pray tell, did Democrats have free reign? Please point out where in the Constitution it states that 60 votes are necessary to pass legislation.

Are you telling me that 59 Democrats in the Senate can't block funding for the wars?

I'd answer your question but Senator Vitter is filibustering. (I'm guessing he's getting some late-afternoon delight.)


The answer to the question is that there was indeed nothing that could have stopped the Democrats from cutting off funding for the war.

The problem is that they don't want to, not that they can't.
 
2012-10-13 03:48:04 PM  

BullBearMS: gimmegimme: BullBearMS: gimmegimme: BullBearMS: gimmegimme: I do think this is an important issue. The Republicans want to eliminate very very very small parts of the federal budget that benefit everyone and massively expand the Defense Department.

Obama tried to keep us in Iraq past the end of the treaty Bush negotiated for total withdrawal

He has kept us in Afghanistan (we've been there for over a decade now) as well.

The Democrats continued to fund the wars when they had nearly complete control of Congress.

If the Democrats wanted to end the wars, they have had every opportunity to do so.

They don't want to. This was the last election cycle's concern troll. Just as Gitmo was.

Both parties favor profitable, profitable endless war. If you do not, then vote third party.

When, pray tell, did Democrats have free reign? Please point out where in the Constitution it states that 60 votes are necessary to pass legislation.

Are you telling me that 59 Democrats in the Senate can't block funding for the wars?

I'd answer your question but Senator Vitter is filibustering. (I'm guessing he's getting some late-afternoon delight.)

The answer to the question is that there was indeed nothing that could have stopped the Democrats from cutting off funding for the war.

The problem is that they don't want to, not that they can't.


BSABSVR is what you're advocating. If you see a guy with a gunshot wound and a hangnail, which one do you handle first?
 
2012-10-13 03:55:08 PM  

gimmegimme: BSABSVR is what you're advocating.


No. No it's not.

Both parties favor endless war. I do not.

Both parties favor protecting the fraudulent bankers who destroyed the economy. I do not.

Both parties favor the free trade agreements that have allowed the obscenely wealthy to move the manufacturing jobs to nations where they can pay slave labor wages and ignore environmental regulations without a financial penalty when they bring those goods back into the US. I do not.

Both parties favor the retarded drug war. I do not.

Both sides are bad, so stop voting for both of them.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-10-13 03:59:18 PM  
"$45 million in merchandising during 2010 split between the Television Workshop and Henson productions."


"The Sesame Workshop hasn't always collected so much revenue from the merchandising of its characters. The show was created using Jim Henson's Muppets, and through the 1990s money the sales of Sesame Street dolls, playsets, and other toys was split with the Jim Henson Company and a German media group called EM.TV. Then in December 2000 the Sesame Workshop acquired the rights to Oscar the Grouch, Cookie Monster, and the other Sesame Street Muppets for $180 million. International licensing has also grown in recent years, especially as the show has gone global with shows like Plaza Sésamo (in Latin America), Sesamstrasse (in Germany), and Takalani Sesame (in South Africa). When The Sesame Workshop's revenue grew by 4 percent in 2005, the New York Times noted that this was "primarily because of new income from international licensing." "
 
2012-10-13 04:08:36 PM  

smitty04: "Four years ago, President Obama said that if you don't have a record to run on, 'you make a big election about small things.' With 23 million people struggling for work, incomes falling, and gas prices soaring, Americans deserve more from their president."


I was told under Bush that the President has no control over gas prices.
 
2012-10-13 04:08:59 PM  

hbk72777: "$45 million in merchandising during 2010 split between the Television Workshop and Henson productions."


"The Sesame Workshop hasn't always collected so much revenue from the merchandising of its characters. The show was created using Jim Henson's Muppets, and through the 1990s money the sales of Sesame Street dolls, playsets, and other toys was split with the Jim Henson Company and a German media group called EM.TV. Then in December 2000 the Sesame Workshop acquired the rights to Oscar the Grouch, Cookie Monster, and the other Sesame Street Muppets for $180 million. International licensing has also grown in recent years, especially as the show has gone global with shows like Plaza Sésamo (in Latin America), Sesamstrasse (in Germany), and Takalani Sesame (in South Africa). When The Sesame Workshop's revenue grew by 4 percent in 2005, the New York Times noted that this was "primarily because of new income from international licensing." "


And the operating expenses for the show are $133 million.
 
2012-10-13 04:16:50 PM  

gimmegimme: OscarTamerz: Democrats and muppets, two groups equally used to having somebody's arm up their asses controlling their every movement.

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 300x295]

I thought cons were mad that left-wing folks are radicals who are on their own in the American ideological ecosystem.


Cons say that their opponents are both sides of an extreme so they can work up the rage and hate to live their daily lives.

BullBearMS: gimmegimme: BSABSVR is what you're advocating.

No. No it's not.

Both parties favor endless war. I do not.

Both parties favor protecting the fraudulent bankers who destroyed the economy. I do not.

Both parties favor the free trade agreements that have allowed the obscenely wealthy to move the manufacturing jobs to nations where they can pay slave labor wages and ignore environmental regulations without a financial penalty when they bring those goods back into the US. I do not.

Both parties favor the retarded drug war. I do not.

Both sides are bad, so stop voting for both of them.

[dl.dropbox.com image 515x320]


It must be fun being a self-proclaimed Libertarian who's so afraid and paranoid of everything. At least Democrats aren't the ones trying to turn America into a misogynist, homophobic, ignorant, rich-man's-paradise, Christian theocracy that declares war at Israel's beckon call. The economy and job growth have risen slowly and steadily for the last 3,5 years ("It could go faster!" you may say, but it was the second-worst recession and the Republicans fought every attempt to fix it because they consider making Obama a one-term president more important). We're actually trying to get out of the conflicts.

I've also noticed that Libertarians always scream about how evil everyone else is, yet they rarely give suggestions for anything and if they do they're the same as one side or the other's plans.
 
2012-10-13 04:18:34 PM  

BullBearMS: Well, yes. It's certainly not important to protest against the decade old endless war in Afghanistan or bullshiat like this:

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.


bmihura: Just balance the budget and lower the United States national debt, Democrats and/or Republicans. Enough on this big bird and gay marriage trivia.

Oh, you can't, especially since 2008?

Let's try the Libertarian approach, since the Democrats and Republicans have joined forces to tank the economy.



Big Bird! Elmo! Tavis Smiley! Terry Gross! The other party is trying to take money and pharmaceuticals and podiatrist office visits away from seniors! Democrats are trying to kill all of our foreign ambassadors! Republicans are rapists and want to kill all women! Cookie Monster!111111111111
 
2012-10-13 04:20:16 PM  

vpb: [blogs.denverpost.com image 495x359] 

It certainly symbolizes what he thinks about education and spending money to help the non-wealthy.


I wonder if sesame street can just sell their shows on the regular airwaves? It seem like the
feds simply pay for sesame street and then some other guy gets to collect all the big bird animal sales.
 
2012-10-13 04:22:42 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: vpb: [blogs.denverpost.com image 495x359] 

It certainly symbolizes what he thinks about education and spending money to help the non-wealthy.

I wonder if sesame street can just sell their shows on the regular airwaves? It seem like the
feds simply pay for sesame street and then some other guy gets to collect all the big bird animal sales.


Not really. Their merchandising doesn't cover all of the operating expenses.
 
2012-10-13 04:24:54 PM  
I see about five different Romney shills going for the "hand up ass" joke. Marching orders must have been sent down from Fox News already.
 
2012-10-13 04:29:20 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: vpb: [blogs.denverpost.com image 495x359] 

It certainly symbolizes what he thinks about education and spending money to help the non-wealthy.

I wonder if sesame street can just sell their shows on the regular airwaves? It seem like the
feds simply pay for sesame street and then some other guy gets to collect all the big bird animal sales.


What you're describing is the United States corn market.
 
2012-10-13 04:31:03 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I see about five different Romney shills going for the "hand up ass" joke. Marching orders must have been sent down from Fox News already.


media.nj.com

WHEN CONFRONTED WITH TROUBLING FACTS,
TALK ABOUT HOW THEY FIST ASSHOLES TO MAKE EACH OTHER TALK AND MOVE.
 

Cunning plan.
 
2012-10-13 04:32:02 PM  

BullBearMS: gimmegimme: BSABSVR is what you're advocating.

No. No it's not.

Both parties favor endless war. I do not.

Both parties favor protecting the fraudulent bankers who destroyed the economy. I do not.

Both parties favor the free trade agreements that have allowed the obscenely wealthy to move the manufacturing jobs to nations where they can pay slave labor wages and ignore environmental regulations without a financial penalty when they bring those goods back into the US. I do not.

Both parties favor the retarded drug war. I do not.

Both sides are bad, so stop voting for both of them.

[dl.dropbox.com image 515x320]


You're not going to accomplish anything by just sitting around and biatching how everyone isn't as cool and smart as you are politically.

DO SOMETHING!
 
2012-10-13 04:38:00 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I see about five different Romney shills going for the "hand up ass" joke. Marching orders must have been sent down from Fox News already.


The right is obsessed with asses and the doing of things to them.
 
2012-10-13 04:45:28 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: It must be fun being a self-proclaimed Libertarian who's so afraid and paranoid of everything.


Apparently, it was fun to spend the last election cycle concern trolling about the Bushian evils of Indefinite Detention, Spying on Americans, and Endless Wars.

Only to defend all of them this year since Obama has not only continued them, but has cranked them all up to eleven.

However, this year's concern troll seems to be Big Bird, although let's take a look at what Obama's bipartisan deficit commission said it wanted to cut.

The goals of reform, as Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson see them, are presented in the form of seven bullet points. "Lower Rates" is the first point; "Reduce the Deficit" is the seventh.

So how, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?

Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases - tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans - the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest - and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.

It will take time to crunch the numbers here, but this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans. And what does any of this have to do with deficit reduction?

Let's turn next to Social Security. There were rumors beforehand that the commission would recommend a rise in the retirement age, and sure enough, that's what Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson do. They want the age at which Social Security becomes available to rise along with average life expectancy. Is that reasonable?

The answer is no, for a number of reasons - including the point that working until you're 69, which may sound doable for people with desk jobs, is a lot harder for the many Americans who still do physical labor.

But beyond that, the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: while average life expectancy is indeed rising, it's doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers live to a ripe old age.

Under the guise of facing our fiscal problems, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson are trying to smuggle in the same old, same old - tax cuts for the rich and erosion of the social safety net.


So yea, killing the mortgage deduction, raising the retirement age, and then using the money saved to reduce taxes on the rich is the bipartisan consensus.

Why not keep voting for those assholes forever?

Maybe they can get the taxes for the rich down to zero if they really try.
 
2012-10-13 04:50:22 PM  
This is pretty ironic, considering that Big Bird is one of the 1%.
 
2012-10-13 04:55:52 PM  
Time to reschedule the annual Muppet Hunt.
 
2012-10-13 04:56:48 PM  

Obama4Life: Actually, it's one of the very few channels worth the funding... that and NPR.


How much do you send to PBS and NPR every year? 

Because if the answer is none, i can tell you about a program that i would like to use your tax dollars to provide firearms for poor unfortunate people that cannot buy their own.
 
2012-10-13 04:57:11 PM  

BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: It must be fun being a self-proclaimed Libertarian who's so afraid and paranoid of everything.

Apparently, it was fun to spend the last election cycle concern trolling about the Bushian evils of Indefinite Detention, Spying on Americans, and Endless Wars.

Only to defend all of them this year since Obama has not only continued them, but has cranked them all up to eleven.

However, this year's concern troll seems to be Big Bird, although let's take a look at what Obama's bipartisan deficit commission said it wanted to cut.

The goals of reform, as Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson see them, are presented in the form of seven bullet points. "Lower Rates" is the first point; "Reduce the Deficit" is the seventh.

So how, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?

Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases - tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans - the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest - and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.

It will take time to crunch the numbers here, but this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans. And what does any of this have to do with deficit reduction?

Let's turn next to Social Security. There were rumors beforehand that the commission would recommend a rise in the retirement age, and sure enough, that's what Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson do. They want the age at which Social Security becomes available to rise along with average life expectancy. Is that reasonable?

The answer is no, for a number of ...


Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven", considering it's Romney who wants tax cuts on the rich and increases on the middle-class, and I've yet to hear of anything involving the Patriot Act under Obama. Obama's tried to do things like close Gitmo and get the economy and job situation fixed faster, but the right's done everything they can to stall and stop.

But I can see how it's much easier to just scream "both sides are bad!" and just give up.
 
2012-10-13 04:58:25 PM  

ideamaster: Obama4Life: Actually, it's one of the very few channels worth the funding... that and NPR.

How much do you send to PBS and NPR every year? 

Because if the answer is none, i can tell you about a program that i would like to use your tax dollars to provide firearms for poor unfortunate people that cannot buy their own.


Guns for Toddlers?
 
2012-10-13 04:58:51 PM  

jjorsett: This is pretty ironic, considering that Big Bird is one of the 1%.


I hate to tell you this but Big Bird is a factional character.
 
2012-10-13 04:59:00 PM  

jvl: Without Government funding, how will my local PBS station afford to make programs by Deepak Chopra that explain how the universe really works?


Same way as you pay your whores. With 20s.
 
2012-10-13 04:59:38 PM  

Fart_Machine: jjorsett: This is pretty ironic, considering that Big Bird is one of the 1%.

I hate to tell you this but Big Bird is a factional character.


A tribal faction at that.
 
2012-10-13 05:06:46 PM  
 
2012-10-13 05:08:59 PM  

BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven"

Indefinite Detention:

Obama first announcing his plan for Indefinite Detention only weeks after taking office.

A radical new claim of Presidential power that is not afforded by the Constitution and that has never been attempted in American history, even by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Obama still fighting for Indefinite Detention today.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.


Yes, so let's all make sure Romney gets in office.
 
2012-10-13 05:20:17 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven"


Spying on Americans:

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications that Congress eventually legalized in 2008.

and

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects' vehicles to track their every move.

and

The Obama administration will tell federal judges in New Orleans today that warrantless tracking of the location of Americans' mobile devices is perfectly legal.

and

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

and

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.

and

When Congress immunized telecoms last August for their illegal participation in Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program, Senate Democratic apologists for telecom immunity repeatedly justified that action by pointing out that Bush officials who broke the law were not immunized - only the telecoms. Here, for instance, is how Sen. Jay Rockefeller justified telecom immunity in a Washington Post Op-Ed:

Second, lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials.

Taking them at their word, EFF - which was the lead counsel in the lawsuits against the telecoms - thereafter filed suit, in October, 2008, against the Bush administration and various Bush officials for illegally spying on the communications of Americans. They were seeking to make good on the promise made by Congressional Democrats: namely, that even though lawsuits against telecoms for illegal spying will not be allowed any longer, government officials who broke the law can still be held accountable.

But late Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government's Weeners to EFF's lawsuit (.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush's NSA program. But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope - never before advanced even by the Bush administration - that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and - even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal - you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.
 
2012-10-13 05:22:12 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Guys are making 300k a year to move their hands inside a puppet.


The only puppet people should be concerned about is the President. No matter which side wins, he's still a puppet, as is most of the government you think you elected.

Big Bird is probably more in control of Sesame Street than any President is of the nation.
 
2012-10-13 05:22:37 PM  

BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven"

Spying on Americans:

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications that Congress eventually legalized in 2008.
......


Right, so let's do whatever we can to make sure R-Money gets the chance to start a third Republican war.
 
2012-10-13 05:24:53 PM  

gimmegimme: BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven"

Indefinite Detention:

Obama first announcing his plan for Indefinite Detention only weeks after taking office.

A radical new claim of Presidential power that is not afforded by the Constitution and that has never been attempted in American history, even by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Obama still fighting for Indefinite Detention today.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Yes, so let's all make sure Romney gets in office.


yeah because a totally farked up civil rights country can only be helped by being totally farked up economically too.

and if yours was sarcasm, sorry. as much as i hate where we are with civil rights and the war on terrortm adding economic suicide doesn't help.
 
2012-10-13 05:26:03 PM  

OscarTamerz: Democrats and muppets, two groups equally used to having somebody's arm up their asses controlling their every movement.

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 300x295]


From the way you talk in the "us vs. them" point of view, I'd say it's YOU (and everyone else who believes there's really a system in place for us to elect leaders) who has been controlled by the puppeteers.

The puppeteers have been in control for a long time, and you all wave your hands at each other and stomp around angrily on cue when they pull your strings.
 
2012-10-13 05:26:09 PM  
So we have everything else taken care of now, we have time for this?
 
2012-10-13 05:26:43 PM  

gimmegimme: BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven"

Spying on Americans:

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications that Congress eventually legalized in 2008.
......

Right, so let's do whatever we can to make sure R-Money gets the chance to start a third Republican war.



www.addictinginfo.org

THIS TIME, WITH RUSSIA HAR HYARR
 
2012-10-13 05:27:20 PM  

Curious: gimmegimme: BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven"

Indefinite Detention:

Obama first announcing his plan for Indefinite Detention only weeks after taking office.

A radical new claim of Presidential power that is not afforded by the Constitution and that has never been attempted in American history, even by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Obama still fighting for Indefinite Detention today.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Yes, so let's all make sure Romney gets in office.

yeah because a totally farked up civil rights country can only be helped by being totally farked up economically too.

and if yours was sarcasm, sorry. as much as i hate where we are with civil rights and the war on terrortm adding economic suicide doesn't help.


No worries; I'm repeatedly pointing out to BullBear that his attitude is counterproductive. We all agree that our two-party system has problems, but we can't hand the keys to sociopaths who have outward contempt for our country and our system of government and want to facilitate Armageddon.
 
2012-10-13 05:27:30 PM  

Curious: gimmegimme: BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven"

Indefinite Detention:

Obama first announcing his plan for Indefinite Detention only weeks after taking office.

A radical new claim of Presidential power that is not afforded by the Constitution and that has never been attempted in American history, even by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Obama still fighting for Indefinite Detention today.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Yes, so let's all make sure Romney gets in office.

yeah because a totally farked up civil rights country can only be helped by being totally farked up economically too.

and if yours was sarcasm, sorry. as much as i hate where we are with civil rights and the war on terrortm adding economic suicide doesn't help.


So Obama protecting the fraudulent bankers who destroyed our economy from the legal and fiscal consequences of actions is just what we all needed?

That's going to keep them from doing it again?

Oh, wait. It's just going to make it more likely.
 
2012-10-13 05:29:18 PM  

BullBearMS: Curious: gimmegimme: BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven"

Indefinite Detention:

Obama first announcing his plan for Indefinite Detention only weeks after taking office.

A radical new claim of Presidential power that is not afforded by the Constitution and that has never been attempted in American history, even by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Obama still fighting for Indefinite Detention today.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Yes, so let's all make sure Romney gets in office.

yeah because a totally farked up civil rights country can only be helped by being totally farked up economically too.

and if yours was sarcasm, sorry. as much as i hate where we are with civil rights and the war on terrortm adding economic suicide doesn't help.

So Obama protecting the fraudulent bankers who destroyed our economy from the legal and fiscal consequences of actions is just what we all needed?

That's going to keep them from doing it again?

Oh, wait. It's just going to make it more likely.


So who should I vote for then?

And don't be vague and say "anyone but Obama". I want an actually breathing human being to vote for.
 
2012-10-13 05:30:05 PM  

Funbags: No kids, so I don't really have a dog in this race, but if Sesame Workshop didn't get their annual $7 million dollar subsidy, they would just shut down? They couldn't find a sponsor(s) interested in marketing to an impressionable demo that never changes the channel?

I guess that's why networks like Nickelodeon and Disney are so unprofitable.


PBS's programs are intended to educate, not just entertain? Spongebob and Disney exist to sell toys and and videos; they do nothing for literacy or early childhood development.
 
2012-10-13 05:30:33 PM  

BullBearMS: Curious: gimmegimme: BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven"

Indefinite Detention:

Obama first announcing his plan for Indefinite Detention only weeks after taking office.

A radical new claim of Presidential power that is not afforded by the Constitution and that has never been attempted in American history, even by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Obama still fighting for Indefinite Detention today.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Yes, so let's all make sure Romney gets in office.

yeah because a totally farked up civil rights country can only be helped by being totally farked up economically too.

and if yours was sarcasm, sorry. as much as i hate where we are with civil rights and the war on terrortm adding economic suicide doesn't help.

So Obama protecting the fraudulent bankers who destroyed our economy from the legal and fiscal consequences of actions is just what we all needed?

That's going to keep them from doing it again?

Oh, wait. It's just going to make it more likely.


Good point. We should suck away enthusiasm for Obama because R-Money will crack the whip on those bankers.
 
2012-10-13 05:31:57 PM  

BullBearMS: gimmegimme: BSABSVR is what you're advocating.

No. No it's not.

Both parties favor endless war. I do not.

Both parties favor protecting the fraudulent bankers who destroyed the economy. I do not.

Both parties favor the free trade agreements that have allowed the obscenely wealthy to move the manufacturing jobs to nations where they can pay slave labor wages and ignore environmental regulations without a financial penalty when they bring those goods back into the US. I do not.

Both parties favor the retarded drug war. I do not.

Both sides are bad, so stop voting for both of them.

[dl.dropbox.com image 515x320]


You are at least somewhat close to the truth. Of course, the lack of real choice is exactly what is desired by the true powers-that-be. They want people to be occupied with the "us-vs-them" arguments, the social debating, the whining, and all the garbage the news and politicians can throw out there to entertain the masses. Meanwhile, the system-- the WORLD-- keeps working the way it always has, with the exact same people still in charge and making everything happen the way they intended it to.

Illusion of choice, indeed. And the thing is, the candidate you think is better? He/She/It is no choice, either. If they're sincere, then there's no way they will be selected by those who actually determine our "leaders", and even if they were picked, they wouldn't have any power anyway. The Presidency is a lie. Politicians are essentially actors being paid big bucks to make it look like they're doing something, when in fact they're just publicly debating and rubber-stamping the laws, rules, and moves that were decided for them by their taskmasters.

We do not live in a democracy. We do not even live in a democratic republic. This is a plutocracy, as is the rest of the world, and it's been that way for longer than any of us have been alive.

The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can get on with your life and stop arguing with "the other side" about minor, exceptionally stupid differences in personal philosophy.
 
2012-10-13 05:33:33 PM  

gimmegimme: Good point. We should suck away enthusiasm for Obama because R-Money will crack the whip on those bankers.


You're just going to invite yet another blue wall of text that accomplishes nothing.
 
2012-10-13 05:33:57 PM  

gimmegimme: Good point. We should suck away enthusiasm for Obama because R-Money will crack the whip on those bankers.


Oh look. Both sides are bad, so vote Democrat. How original.
 
2012-10-13 05:34:32 PM  

gimmegimme: BullBearMS: Curious: gimmegimme: BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven"

Indefinite Detention:

Obama first announcing his plan for Indefinite Detention only weeks after taking office.

A radical new claim of Presidential power that is not afforded by the Constitution and that has never been attempted in American history, even by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Obama still fighting for Indefinite Detention today.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Yes, so let's all make sure Romney gets in office.

yeah because a totally farked up civil rights country can only be helped by being totally farked up economically too.

and if yours was sarcasm, sorry. as much as i hate where we are with civil rights and the war on terrortm adding economic suicide doesn't help.

So Obama protecting the fraudulent bankers who destroyed our economy from the legal and fiscal consequences of actions is just what we all needed?

That's going to keep them from doing it again?

Oh, wait. It's just going to make it more likely.

Good point. We should suck away enthusiasm for Obama because R-Money will crack the whip on those bankers.


He's one of those "So vote third party" without actually specifying which third party candidate to vote for.

Unless all the disgruntled Democrats/Republicans unify to form a united third party, nothing will change.

/My two cents on the whole third party thing
 
2012-10-13 05:35:15 PM  

BullBearMS: gimmegimme: Good point. We should suck away enthusiasm for Obama because R-Money will crack the whip on those bankers.

Oh look. Both sides are bad, so vote Democrat. How original.


So who should we vote for then?

/still waiting for an answer from you
 
2012-10-13 05:36:35 PM  

ZeroCorpse: You are at least somewhat close to the truth. Of course, the lack of real choice is exactly what is desired by the true powers-that-be. They want people to be occupied with the "us-vs-them" arguments, the social debating, the whining, and all the garbage the news and politicians can throw out there to entertain the masses. Meanwhile, the system-- the WORLD-- keeps working the way it always has, with the exact same people still in charge and making everything happen the way they intended it to.

Illusion of choice, indeed. And the thing is, the candidate you think is better? He/She/It is no choice, either. If they're sincere, then there's no way they will be selected by those who actually determine our "leaders", and even if they were picked, they wouldn't have any power anyway. The Presidency is a lie. Politicians are essentially actors being paid big bucks to make it look like they're doing something, when in fact they're just publicly debating and rubber-stamping the laws, rules, and moves that were decided for them by their taskmasters.

We do not live in a democracy. We do not even live in a democratic republic. This is a plutocracy, as is the rest of the world, and it's been that way for longer than any of us have been alive.

The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can get on with your life and stop arguing with "the other side" about minor, exceptionally stupid differences in personal philosophy.


2.bp.blogspot.com

I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message.
 
2012-10-13 05:38:32 PM  

ZeroCorpse: This is a plutocracy


I agree wholeheartedly.

ZeroCorpse: minor, exceptionally stupid differences in personal philosophy


The rule of law is hardly a minor philosophy.

Indefinite detention in military prisons without a trial until the end of the "war on terror" is well worth speaking out against.
 
2012-10-13 05:39:17 PM  

thamike: legion_of_doo: Romney might kill Sesame Street, but Obama already killed NASA.

Oh, yeah, NASA's really suffering right now. 0.5% of the federal budget (down by about 1 tenth of a percent from 2001) and mean old Obama refocused it for things like Mars exploration and the Orion MPCV. Just look at the team at NASA Jet Propulsion laboratory. They are obviously miserable.

[www.csmonitor.com image 600x400]

F*cking ZeroFartBongo, that traitor.


Why aren't there any the brothers in that picture?
 
2012-10-13 05:39:59 PM  

Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: Curious: gimmegimme: BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven"

Indefinite Detention:

Obama first announcing his plan for Indefinite Detention only weeks after taking office.

A radical new claim of Presidential power that is not afforded by the Constitution and that has never been attempted in American history, even by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Obama still fighting for Indefinite Detention today.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Yes, so let's all make sure Romney gets in office.

yeah because a totally farked up civil rights country can only be helped by being totally farked up economically too.

and if yours was sarcasm, sorry. as much as i hate where we are with civil rights and the war on terrortm adding economic suicide doesn't help.

So Obama protecting the fraudulent bankers who destroyed our economy from the legal and fiscal consequences of actions is just what we all needed?

That's going to keep them from doing it again?

Oh, wait. It's just going to make it more likely.

So who should I vote for then?

And don't be vague and say "anyone but Obama". I want an actually breathing human being to vote for.


WHY?

Why is it so important that you feel like you're "doing something" or at all involved in the selection of our leaders... Even when it's certain that your vote is about as useful as a propeller on a condom?

The fact is that no matter who you "vote" for, the people in charge will select the person who best achieves their goals of distracting you from what they are doing in the background.

You're worried about voting for which big, green face the Wizard of Oz projects on the screen, and not even considering that you can't get rid of the actual Wizard behind the curtain. Nor would you want to, because if you did the world would fall apart.

Go vote for Obama. Or for Romney. Or for a chair. Or for a squirrel named "Nutty" for all I care... but I'm telling you, it doesn't mean shiat. It's just an action they allow you to mimic in order to feel like you have some control over the results.

The role has been cast. You're just calling in votes on the reality show, now.
 
2012-10-13 05:42:14 PM  
Holy balls, this is stupid.
 
2012-10-13 05:44:27 PM  
dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-10-13 05:44:31 PM  

thamike: Holy balls, this is stupid.


No, no. I think that BullBear and ZeroCorpse are making good points. Think about the 2000 election. We would be in the EXACT SAME PLACE had Kerry won the Supreme Court Election. Right? It doesn't matter who sits in the chair.
 
2012-10-13 05:47:01 PM  

Whodat: If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".


You know how I know that you have no clue whatsoever about the difference between CTW and PBS?
 
2012-10-13 05:47:21 PM  

BullBearMS: [dl.dropbox.com image 421x543]


We're still waiting for you to provide some concrete path to success.
 
2012-10-13 05:48:03 PM  

BullBearMS: ZeroCorpse: This is a plutocracy

I agree wholeheartedly.

ZeroCorpse: minor, exceptionally stupid differences in personal philosophy

The rule of law is hardly a minor philosophy.

Indefinite detention in military prisons without a trial until the end of the "war on terror" is well worth speaking out against.


You're not getting me.

No matter WHO you vote for, the results are the same: The will of the people who are really in charge. The plutocrats. The guys who have been pulling the strings for at least a few hundred-- if not a few thousand-- years.

So all this worry about detention without trial, or rule of law is sort of pointless. Whatever you do, you aren't going to change it. You can debate it all you want-- That's your right (for now). But the debate is essentially useless because the people in charge will make the moves they want to make, whether it's Romney or Obama or Dick the Wonder Turtle in the White House. Sure, the person they select has some public responsibilities, and will have some minor effect on the way things turn out, but ultimately the President is powerless in the face of his masters.

And Presidents who don't play their role the way they're supposed to? They end up being written out of the plans. We've seen it before. We'll see it again.

So get your honest, decent man in the White House. Go ahead. Get a man who will turn against the guys who are really in charge, and he will end up underground before his term is up, and someone will take his place to return it to the status quo, and life in the world will continue EXACTLY the way the powers-that-be WANT it to.

You have free will, but unless you and a billion other people rise up against the guys in charge (and I don't mean national governments, either), nothing will ever change unless they decide it changes.

Bleak? Sure.

Deal with it, because that's the way it really is.
 
2012-10-13 05:48:07 PM  

gimmegimme: thamike: Holy balls, this is stupid.

No, no. I think that BullBear and ZeroCorpse are making good points. Think about the 2000 election. We would be in the EXACT SAME PLACE had Kerry won the Supreme Court Election. Right? It doesn't matter who sits in the chair.


Right. Because when Obama said he would "fix the economy" what he really meant was protect those who destroyed it from prosecution!
 
2012-10-13 05:48:17 PM  

Diogenes: It obscures the larger issue that you can't pay for his tax plan by fishing through the national couch cushions for loose change.


The problem comes from having people in office that think you "pay" for a tax plan. If they thought about taxes as "revenue" instead of "spending" and then spent just what was brought in, things would be much better.
 
2012-10-13 05:51:17 PM  

BullBearMS: gimmegimme: thamike: Holy balls, this is stupid.

No, no. I think that BullBear and ZeroCorpse are making good points. Think about the 2000 election. We would be in the EXACT SAME PLACE had Kerry won the Supreme Court Election. Right? It doesn't matter who sits in the chair.

Right. Because when Obama said he would "fix the economy" what he really meant was protect those who destroyed it from prosecution!


Are you really saying that Bush and Gore would have had the same exact reaction to 9/11? Are you really implying that the two men would have pushed for the same deregulation that led to the Bush Recession?

Benjimin_Dover: Diogenes: It obscures the larger issue that you can't pay for his tax plan by fishing through the national couch cushions for loose change.

The problem comes from having people in office that think you "pay" for a tax plan. If they thought about taxes as "revenue" instead of "spending" and then spent just what was brought in, things would be much better.


He's right. It's not as though government has planned its expenditures far into the future. You can just call up Wal-Mart and order one of the next-generation aircraft carriers they're advertising on their web site.
 
2012-10-13 05:53:08 PM  

ZeroCorpse: No matter WHO you vote for, the results are the same: The will of the people who are really in charge. The plutocrats. The guys who have been pulling the strings for at least a few hundred-- if not a few thousand-- years.

So all this worry about detention without trial, or rule of law is sort of pointless. Whatever you do, you aren't going to change it. You can debate it all you want-- That's your right (for now). But the debate is essentially useless because the people in charge will make the moves they want to make, whether it's Romney or Obama or Dick the Wonder Turtle in the White House. Sure, the person they select has some public responsibilities, and will have some minor effect on the way things turn out, but ultimately the President is powerless in the face of his masters.


That kind of ignores the Progressives who took back the nation from Plutocratic control during the Guilded Age.

It can be done.

it has been done.

Unfortunately, we did not learn the lesson of history, so now we are doomed to repeat it.
 
2012-10-13 05:53:35 PM  

gimmegimme: BullBearMS: [dl.dropbox.com image 421x543]

We're still waiting for you to provide some concrete path to success.


I'm sure he was an American Extremist cartoon for that. 

What it really comes down to is just biatching that everyone isn't as cool and "with it" political as they are. I'd be more than happy to vote for a third party if there was a viable one, but there isn't a viable one and so it really would just be a waste of a vote.

So which third party candidate should we all unite behind?
 
2012-10-13 05:53:55 PM  

gimmegimme: thamike: Holy balls, this is stupid.

No, no. I think that BullBear and ZeroCorpse are making good points. Think about the 2000 election. We would be in the EXACT SAME PLACE had Kerry won the Supreme Court Election. Right? It doesn't matter who sits in the chair.


I think you're working under the premise that we have any control over who becomes President. We don't. Kerry "lost" because Kerry was never supposed to be in the White House. He was selected as the special guest co-star for the election reality show. Bush was the guy They wanted, and so Bush was put back in place... And it's not as if it matters, because he was as much a puppet as anyone else.

The agenda that came about under Bush was trickled down from people far more powerful than him. If Kerry had been selected by Them, then the agenda would have been similar but with a different form of delivery to make it palatable to the other half of society.
 
2012-10-13 05:54:52 PM  

BullBearMS: Guilded Age.

Gilded Age
 
2012-10-13 05:56:05 PM  

BullBearMS: ZeroCorpse: No matter WHO you vote for, the results are the same: The will of the people who are really in charge. The plutocrats. The guys who have been pulling the strings for at least a few hundred-- if not a few thousand-- years.

So all this worry about detention without trial, or rule of law is sort of pointless. Whatever you do, you aren't going to change it. You can debate it all you want-- That's your right (for now). But the debate is essentially useless because the people in charge will make the moves they want to make, whether it's Romney or Obama or Dick the Wonder Turtle in the White House. Sure, the person they select has some public responsibilities, and will have some minor effect on the way things turn out, but ultimately the President is powerless in the face of his masters.

That kind of ignores the Progressives who took back the nation from Plutocratic control during the Guilded Age.

It can be done.

it has been done.

Unfortunately, we did not learn the lesson of history, so now we are doomed to repeat it.


Sure it CAN be done.

You just call me when people get off their fat asses, stop watching American Idol and Honey Boo Boo, turn their farming tools into weapons, and decide to fight the powers-that-be to the bitter end.

I'll be over here enjoying modern living in a first-world nation, and not taking it for granted.
 
2012-10-13 05:56:20 PM  

ZeroCorpse: gimmegimme: thamike: Holy balls, this is stupid.

No, no. I think that BullBear and ZeroCorpse are making good points. Think about the 2000 election. We would be in the EXACT SAME PLACE had Kerry won the Supreme Court Election. Right? It doesn't matter who sits in the chair.

I think you're working under the premise that we have any control over who becomes President. We don't. Kerry "lost" because Kerry was never supposed to be in the White House. He was selected as the special guest co-star for the election reality show. Bush was the guy They wanted, and so Bush was put back in place... And it's not as if it matters, because he was as much a puppet as anyone else.

The agenda that came about under Bush was trickled down from people far more powerful than him. If Kerry had been selected by Them, then the agenda would have been similar but with a different form of delivery to make it palatable to the other half of society.


So what is your plan? We're on board.
 
2012-10-13 05:56:29 PM  

BullBearMS: That kind of ignores the Progressives who took back the nation from Plutocratic control during the Guilded Age.

It can be done.

it has been done.

Unfortunately, we did not learn the lesson of history, so now we are doomed to repeat it.


The thing to consider was that back then PROGRESSIVE WERE UNITED AS ONE GROUP BACK THEN INSTEAD OF 20 DIFFERENT POLITICAL FACTIONS LIKE TODAY!!! 

Jesus, how hard is that for you to comprehend?
 
2012-10-13 05:59:43 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: It seem like the
feds simply pay for sesame street and then some other guy gets to collect all the big bird animal sales.


How farking stupid are you. Sesame Street pays its own production costs. The Federal government gives a VERY small amount to PBS to cover its operating costs, and the operating costs of the PBS stations, which are all independently owned.
 
2012-10-13 06:01:00 PM  

Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: That kind of ignores the Progressives who took back the nation from Plutocratic control during the Guilded Age.

It can be done.

it has been done.

Unfortunately, we did not learn the lesson of history, so now we are doomed to repeat it.

The thing to consider was that back then PROGRESSIVE WERE UNITED AS ONE GROUP BACK THEN INSTEAD OF 20 DIFFERENT POLITICAL FACTIONS LIKE TODAY!!! 

Jesus, how hard is that for you to comprehend?


Yea, but the Progressives abandoned the existing parties who both were owned by the rich.

It was only after the rise of the Progressive movement that political parties adopted their agenda to survive.
 
2012-10-13 06:02:38 PM  

BullBearMS: Yea, but the Progressives abandoned the existing parties who both were owned by the rich.

It was only after the rise of the Progressive movement that political parties adopted their agenda to survive.


Right, and they united as a group. That's why they got leverage.

Splitting up into 20 different political factions doesn't help your agenda AT ALL!

That's why they need to united as one political party/group in order to get any leverage again.
 
2012-10-13 06:06:56 PM  

Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: Yea, but the Progressives abandoned the existing parties who both were owned by the rich.

It was only after the rise of the Progressive movement that political parties adopted their agenda to survive.

Right, and they united as a group. That's why they got leverage.

Splitting up into 20 different political factions doesn't help your agenda AT ALL!

That's why they need to united as one political party/group in order to get any leverage again.


No. You're entirely wrong as usual.

They stopped voting for the corrupt political parties as the first step.

If you keep voting for the corrupt political parties despite knowing they are both corrupt, where is the incentive for those parties to change?

Once those entrenched political parties figured out they had to adapt or die, they adapted.

At least for a while. Now they have both sold us out again.
 
2012-10-13 06:11:42 PM  

BullBearMS: They stopped voting for the corrupt political parties as the first step.


A large group did yes. Because they found a more viable third option.

Unless you don't provide a viable third option, you're not going to get masses of people to vote third party. 

What makes you think that you guys are as influential as the progressive back then even though you're not as organized and united as they were?
 
2012-10-13 06:15:38 PM  

Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: They stopped voting for the corrupt political parties as the first step.

A large group did yes. Because they found a more viable third option.

Unless you don't provide a viable third option, you're not going to get masses of people to vote third party. 

What makes you think that you guys are as influential as the progressive back then even though you're not as organized and united as they were?


BullBear HAS provided a viable third option.

Times are terrible so we should

Both parties are too entrenched to displace so our only option is to

American politics are controlled by corporations so the very first thing we should do is
 
2012-10-13 06:16:09 PM  

Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: They stopped voting for the corrupt political parties as the first step.

A large group did yes. Because they found a more viable third option.


Horseshiat.

They realized that the existing politicians made no effort to serve the interests of anyone except the obscenely wealthy.

Just like today.

dl.dropbox.com

Stop voting evil into power.
 
2012-10-13 06:17:14 PM  

BullBearMS: Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: They stopped voting for the corrupt political parties as the first step.

A large group did yes. Because they found a more viable third option.

Horseshiat.

They realized that the existing politicians made no effort to serve the interests of anyone except the obscenely wealthy.

Just like today.

[dl.dropbox.com image 475x315]

Stop voting evil into power.


So what's your plan to get MASSES of people to vote third party.

I see you're having a hard time understanding this.
 
2012-10-13 06:19:09 PM  

gimmegimme: Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: They stopped voting for the corrupt political parties as the first step.

A large group did yes. Because they found a more viable third option.

Unless you don't provide a viable third option, you're not going to get masses of people to vote third party. 

What makes you think that you guys are as influential as the progressive back then even though you're not as organized and united as they were?

BullBear HAS provided a viable third option.

Times are terrible so we should

Both parties are too entrenched to displace so our only option is to

American politics are controlled by corporations so the very first thing we should do is


I know right.

All I'm saying is don't biatch and moan that people aren't voting third party when you're not doing enough to convince people to vote third party (besides looking down on them for not voting third party).
 
2012-10-13 06:23:16 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So what's your plan to get MASSES of people to vote third party.


I like to wait for idiots like you to complain about the other political party doing the same shiat yours does. Then I point it out. With citations.

Sooner or later, facts sink in.
 
2012-10-13 06:25:54 PM  

BullBearMS: Mrtraveler01: So what's your plan to get MASSES of people to vote third party.

I like to wait for idiots like you to complain about the other political party doing the same shiat yours does. Then I point it out. With citations.

Sooner or later, facts sink in.


What a cunning plan. Thanks to your extensive planning, there's no WAY that Obama or Romney can win the Presidency.
 
2012-10-13 06:31:23 PM  

gimmegimme: BullBearMS: Mrtraveler01: So what's your plan to get MASSES of people to vote third party.

I like to wait for idiots like you to complain about the other political party doing the same shiat yours does. Then I point it out. With citations.

Sooner or later, facts sink in.

What a cunning plan. Thanks to your extensive planning, there's no WAY that Obama or Romney can win the Presidency.


Ahhh... The delicious irony of being in a PBS thread with "liberals" complaining about factual information.
 
2012-10-13 06:35:59 PM  

gimmegimme: thamike: Holy balls, this is stupid.

No, no. I think that BullBear and ZeroCorpse are making good points. Think about the 2000 election. We would be in the EXACT SAME PLACE had Kerry won the Supreme Court Election. Right? It doesn't matter who sits in the chair.


He doesn't have a point. Fark is a vehicle for him to piss and moan and rationalize their alleged voter apathy while trying to talk people in tiny circles. There is nothing to convince or be convinced by. The more specifics you ask for, the broader the topic gets. It's navel-gazing horsesh*t masquerading as superiority.
 
2012-10-13 06:40:10 PM  
See? Now he's accusing everybody else of being off topic. Now we're going to argue about what the implied ironic juxtaposition between PBS and actual information is
 
2012-10-13 06:40:19 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I don't care who you vote for - but I honestly do question the value of government funding going to something like PBS.

If people really love crap that is on PBS then it doesn't need government funding. People will support it or they'll sell ads or do whatever else.
If people don't really love crap that is on PBS that we shouldn't waste government funding on it.

I know, I know, there are lots of things more serious on the budget than this; but that doesn't change my opinion on it. Guys are making 300k a year to move their hands inside a puppet. That may or may not be a fair wage for such things; but I sure as don't see any need to fund it with public dollars. Let the market decide.

I went overseas and saw the crap they produce here with funds extorted from people with the 'TV License Tax'. Absolute crap TV with the crappy publicly funded actors making many, many times the normal wage. If they're really worth that amount of money there is no need to forcefully collect it from tax payers.

There are ENDLESS numbers of TV shows for children that are also educational that are don't funded with tax payer dollars.
It's a waste.


Do you mean crap like The Office that is so bad it is copied by US commercial networks? Or perhaps crap like Fawlty Towers or Coupling?

Thank God we have your US commercial networks to provide the world with quality commercial entertainment like Toddlers in Tiaras.

On the other hand, thank God that conservatives in the UK are not extremists and we still have the BBC and actual high quality, intelligent content available,
 
2012-10-13 06:40:46 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: There are ENDLESS numbers of TV shows for children that are also educational that are don't funded with tax payer dollars.
It's a waste.


You have to ask yourself, can the biggest economy in the world afford .0012% of its budget to ensure distribution of really good educational TV and a safe starting ground for a variety of television programs? And apparently, you look at it and say 'No.'
 
2012-10-13 06:40:47 PM  
I dropped an 'f' somewhere...
 
2012-10-13 06:42:30 PM  

thamike: gimmegimme: thamike: Holy balls, this is stupid.

No, no. I think that BullBear and ZeroCorpse are making good points. Think about the 2000 election. We would be in the EXACT SAME PLACE had Kerry won the Supreme Court Election. Right? It doesn't matter who sits in the chair.

He doesn't have a point. Fark is a vehicle for him to piss and moan and rationalize their alleged voter apathy while trying to talk people in tiny circles. There is nothing to convince or be convinced by. The more specifics you ask for, the broader the topic gets. It's navel-gazing horsesh*t masquerading as superiority.


I was being facetious, friend. They sound like hippies with their vague crap. I've tried asking for some specifics.
 
2012-10-13 06:43:48 PM  

gimmegimme: I was being facetious, friend. They sound like hippies with their vague crap. I've tried asking for some specifics.


It was for everybody's benefit.
 
2012-10-13 06:53:00 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I went overseas and saw the crap they produce here with funds extorted from people with the 'TV License Tax'. Absolute crap TV with the crappy publicly funded actors making many, many times the normal wage. If they're really worth that amount of money there is no need to forcefully collect it from tax payers.


Yes...when I think of the BBC, I think of crap.

Fark_Guy_Rob: There are ENDLESS numbers of TV shows for children that are also educational that are don't funded with tax payer dollars.
It's a waste.



Such as? Have you seen the shows geared for kids today? Contrary to what you may think, Spongebob Squarepants is not educational or an accurate interpretation of aquatic life.
 
2012-10-13 06:55:31 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Obama's tried to do things like close Gitmo


Obama never tried to close Gitmo. He tried to move it into an unused prison on US soil instead.

In ordering the federal government to acquire an Illinois prison to house terrorism suspects who are currently held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, President Obama on Tuesday took a major step toward shutting down the military detention facility that its detractors say had become a potent recruitment tool for Al Qaeda.

Administration officials acknowledged that the move would require Congressional approval, since Congress now bars Guantánamo detainees from being brought onto American soil unless they face prosecution, and some of the detainees may be indefinitely confined without being tried.


That's not closing Gitmo. That's moving it onto US soil where they admit they wanted to keep on holding people forever without a trial.

Here's what the ACLU had to say at the time:

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

"The creation of a 'Gitmo North' in Illinois is hardly a meaningful step forward. Shutting down Guantánamo will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its lawless policies onshore.

"Alarmingly, all indications are that the administration plans to continue its predecessor's policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location. Such a policy is completely at odds with our democratic commitment to due process and human rights whether it's occurring in Cuba or in Illinois. In fact, while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies. It is unimaginable that the Obama administration is using the same justification as the Bush administration used to undercut centuries of legal jurisprudence and the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the right to confront one's accusers.


Then, of course, we have the fact that Obama is even now fighting for Indefinite Detention without a trial on US soil:

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

I must say, the whole "Obama tried to close Gimtmo" lie is laughable at best.

Obama has been fighting for Indefinite Detention from the very beginning.
 
2012-10-13 06:59:05 PM  
"F" PBS. If they can't make it on their own, who cares?
 
2012-10-13 06:59:48 PM  

BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: .


Dude, you have at least two people asking you for a tangible plan. What should we do to break the two-party political system?
 
2012-10-13 07:06:50 PM  
 
2012-10-13 07:15:00 PM  

gimmegimme: BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: .

Dude, you have at least two people asking you for a tangible plan. What should we do to break the two-party political system?


Don't hold your breath.
 
2012-10-13 07:17:11 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: "F" PBS. If they can't make it on their own, who cares?


The hundreds of millions of Americans who benefit because of the existence of PBS at a ridiculously low cost to the taxpayer?
 
2012-10-13 07:19:07 PM  
I always figured Democrats were a bunch of muppets, but I didn't expect them to agree with me.
 
2012-10-13 07:20:01 PM  

gimmegimme: Clemkadidlefark: "F" PBS. If they can't make it on their own, who cares?

The hundreds of millions of Americans who benefit because of the existence of PBS at a ridiculously low cost to the taxpayer?


At least they admit that it's not about the budget anymore and is instead some petty ax to grind they have with PBS.
 
2012-10-13 07:41:29 PM  

Mrtraveler01: gimmegimme: Clemkadidlefark: "F" PBS. If they can't make it on their own, who cares?

The hundreds of millions of Americans who benefit because of the existence of PBS at a ridiculously low cost to the taxpayer?

At least they admit that it's not about the budget anymore and is instead some petty ax to grind they have with PBS.


www.motherjones.com

Or shovel...
 
2012-10-13 07:52:19 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: There are ENDLESS numbers of TV shows for children that are also educational that are don't funded with tax payer dollars.
It's a waste.


Name one privately funded show that has the same quality of education as Sesame Street.

/seriously, I'd love to check it out
 
2012-10-13 08:00:27 PM  
It's a good thing we're focusing on this instead of Libya.

"Speed bumps."

BIG BIRD, YO.
 
2012-10-13 08:08:47 PM  

thamike: gimmegimme: Good point. We should suck away enthusiasm for Obama because R-Money will crack the whip on those bankers.

You're just going to invite yet another blue wall of text that accomplishes nothing.


All three of Obama's Chiefs of Staff have come from the banks.

Bill Moyers on PBS:
Jack Lew is President Obama's new chief of staff - arguably the most powerful office in the White House that isn't shaped like an oval. He used to work for the giant banking conglomerate Citigroup.

His predecessor as chief of staff is Bill Daley, who used to work at the giant banking conglomerate JPMorgan Chase, where he was maestro of the bank's global lobbying and chief liaison to the White House. Daley replaced Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who once worked as a rainmaker for the investment bank now known as Wasserstein & Company, where in less than three years he was paid a reported eighteen and a half million dollars.

The new guy, Jack Lew ran hedge funds and private equity at Citigroup, which means he's a member of the Wall Street gang, too. His last job was as head of President Obama's Office of Management and Budget, where he replaced Peter Orzag, who now works as vice chairman for global banking at - hold on to your deposit slip - Citigroup.

President Obama may call bankers "fat cats" and stir the rabble against them with populist rhetoric when it serves his interest, but after the fiscal fiasco, he allowed the culprits to escape virtually scot-free. When he's in New York he dines with them frequently and eagerly accepts their big contributions. Like his predecessors, his administration also has provided them with billions of taxpayer dollars - low-cost money that they used for high-yielding investments to make big profits. The largest banks are bigger than they were when he took office and earned more in the first two-and-a-half years of his term than they did during the entire eight years of the Bush administration. That's confirmed by industry data.

And get this. It turns out, according to The New York Times, that as President Obama's inner circle has been shrinking, his "rare new best friend" is Robert Wolf. They play basketball, golf, and talk economics when Wolf is not raising money for the president's campaign.

Robert Wolf runs the U.S. branch of the giant Swiss bank UBS, which participated in schemes to help rich Americans evade their taxes.


Obama put a millionaire Wall Street Defense attorney in charge of the department responsible for prosecuting the Wall Street fraud that destroyed the economy.

Newsweek:
Obama chose Eric Holder, a former Clinton Justice official who, after a career in government, joined the Washington office of Covington & Burling, a top-tier law firm with an elite white-collar defense unit. The move to Covington, and back to Justice, is an example of Washington's revolving-door ritual, which, for Holder, has been lucrative--he pulled in $2.1 million as a Covington partner in 2008, and $2.5 million (including deferred compensation) when he left the firm in 2009.

Putting a Covington partner--he spent nearly a decade at the firm--in charge of Justice may have sent a signal to the financial community, whose marquee names are Covington clients. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Deutsche Bank are among the institutions that pay for Covington's legal advice, some of it relating to matters before the Department of Justice.

But Holder's was not the only face at Justice familiar to Covington clients. Lanny Breuer, who had co-chaired the white-collar defense unit at Covington with Holder, was chosen to head the criminal division at Obama's Justice. Two other Covington lawyers followed Holder into top positions, and Holder's principal deputy, James Cole, was recruited from Bryan Cave LLP, another white-shoe firm with A-list finance clients.


Obama put Wall Street's guy in charge of the Department of Treasury:


Frontline on PBS:
NARRATOR: Candidate Barack Obama had made the economy a key issue.

Sen. BARACK OBAMA: We've got eight years of disastrous economic policies. That's what we're going to change when I'm president of the United States of America!

NARRATOR: But now, during the transition in Chicago, President-elect Obama faced a crucial decision about the economy. What team would he put together to carry out his agenda?

NARRATOR: The left's first choice was Paul Volcker. Feared on Wall Street, he was the reformers' guru, a former Federal Reserve chairman, a pro-regulation advocate, and an outspoken critic of the Wall Street banks.

NARRATOR: Picking Volcker would deliver on his campaign promises to reform the banks and get tough on Wall Street. But inside his transition team, there was also a more moderate faction, veterans of the Clinton administration. They had their own candidate.

NARRATOR: Geithner's career took off in the Clinton administration, a protege of Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.

ROBERT REICH, Obama Economic Advisor: I knew that he was a protege of Bob Rubin. I knew that he was therefore of and by and from Wall Street. He sees the economy, as a practical matter, the way Wall Street sees the economy. And therefore, Tim Geithner is going to reflect what Wall Street ultimately wants.

NARRATOR: For Obama, adding Geithner, a key player during the Bush administration, would be an unusual choice.


We all know how that choice went.

Obama even went so far as to work to shut down the state investigations into Wall Street fraud.

New York Times:
Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal.

Matt Taibbi put it best:
A power play is underway in the foreclosure arena, according to the New York Times.

The idea behind this federally-guided "settlement" is to concentrate and centralize all the legal exposure accrued by this generation of grotesque banker corruption in one place, put one single price tag on it that everyone can live with, and then stuff the details into a titanium canister before shooting it into deep space.

This is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with cost certainty, so that they know exactly how much they'll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline.


Then there is the part where Obama outright told the bankers that he was "standing between them and the pitchforks."

Frontline on PBS
NARRATOR: Two weeks later, the nation's top bankers were summoned to the White House.
-after leveling some very harsh words at bankers- The president wanted to talk to them.

NEWSCASTER: Looking for accountability from the nation's banking leaders, today President Obama is meeting with CEOs of some of the nation's-

CHARLES DUHIGG: Thirteen bankers were called into a room to meet with the president of the United States. They were told that they were going to be chastised, that this was going to be the opportunity for the president to vent the public's anger.

NARRATOR: The bankers feared they could be forced to accept dramatic reforms- a ban against "too big to fail," a limit on executive compensation, and a requirement that they refinance mortgages for underwater homeowners.

RON SUSKIND: Obama comes in, and he's all business.

NARRATOR: There were few pleasantries exchanged. The president spoke first.

KEN LEWIS, CEO, Bank of America, 2001-09: The president made it pretty clear when he talked to us, you know, "We're between you and the pitchforks, guys. And you need to just acknowledge that."
 

Obama serves the interests of the obscenely wealthy, just as Romney does.
 
2012-10-13 08:13:53 PM  
Jim Henson graduated from University of Maryland. Seems like it would definitely have some local support who'll drive down for it. Neat!
 
2012-10-13 08:20:45 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Whodat: If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".

Top 25%, if I remember correctly.

And PBS doesn't own Big Bird or Sesame Street; they're owned by an independent non-profit called the Children's Television Workshop, who (in good capitalist fashion) sell the program to PBS.


So then cutting funding to PBS won't actually be cutting funding to Sesame Street.
 
2012-10-13 08:42:10 PM  

Whodat: So then cutting funding to PBS won't actually be cutting funding to Sesame Street.


No, but cut funding to some PBS stations and they'll go off the air. Sesame Street will continue to exist; your kids just won't be able to watch it. (Christie already took WNJN off the air in New Jersey, because it replied on state funding).

But I have a feeling this isn't actually about PBS, but rather NPR, which is about the only non-biased media outlet out there. Yes, they still lean a little to the right, but that's mainly because they work hard to present both sides of any story they report. In some parts of the country, they're the only source for local news, which means there are people out there who are getting unbiased reporting and not being fed propaganda, which is why NPR must go.
 
2012-10-13 09:10:44 PM  
Maybe people should show their support of pbs by making a donation rather than, say, buying a car for the vp.
 
2012-10-13 09:31:35 PM  

big pig peaches: Maybe people should show their support of pbs by making a donation rather than, say, buying a car for the vp.


Maybe some of us already do?
 
2012-10-13 09:58:15 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Whodat: So then cutting funding to PBS won't actually be cutting funding to Sesame Street.

No, but cut funding to some PBS stations and they'll go off the air. Sesame Street will continue to exist; your kids just won't be able to watch it. (Christie already took WNJN off the air in New Jersey, because it replied on state funding).

But I have a feeling this isn't actually about PBS, but rather NPR, which is about the only non-biased media outlet out there. Yes, they still lean a little to the right, but that's mainly because they work hard to present both sides of any story they report. In some parts of the country, they're the only source for local news, which means there are people out there who are getting unbiased reporting and not being fed propaganda, which is why NPR must go.


That's some good stuff you're smoking.
 
2012-10-13 10:08:32 PM  

Il Douchey: It was my understanding that Sesame Street is sponsored by the letter Q and the number 6


It shows how toxic the show is that their sponsors only last one episode before distancing themselves.
 
2012-10-13 11:36:29 PM  
This is where the Sexy Bert costume I bought pays for itself.
 
2012-10-13 11:42:15 PM  

gerrymander: Didn't Sesame Street explicitly ask that Democrats stop using Big Bird in a partisan way?


...maybe Avenue Q could be used instead, to "show" what children's entertainment will become if Sesame Street has to go fully commercial?
 
2012-10-13 11:44:36 PM  

abb3w: gerrymander: Didn't Sesame Street explicitly ask that Democrats stop using Big Bird in a partisan way?

...maybe Avenue Q could be used instead, to "show" what children's entertainment will become if Sesame Street has to go fully commercial?


That or Nickelodeon and Disney Channel (sans Phineas and Ferb, that show is tolerable).
 
2012-10-14 12:35:13 AM  

BullBearMS: .


So what's your plan, man? I'ma still waitin'!
 
2012-10-14 12:54:11 AM  

Benjimin_Dover: Dwight_Yeast: Whodat: So then cutting funding to PBS won't actually be cutting funding to Sesame Street.

No, but cut funding to some PBS stations and they'll go off the air. Sesame Street will continue to exist; your kids just won't be able to watch it. (Christie already took WNJN off the air in New Jersey, because it replied on state funding).

But I have a feeling this isn't actually about PBS, but rather NPR, which is about the only non-biased media outlet out there. Yes, they still lean a little to the right, but that's mainly because they work hard to present both sides of any story they report. In some parts of the country, they're the only source for local news, which means there are people out there who are getting unbiased reporting and not being fed propaganda, which is why NPR must go.

That's some good stuff you're smoking.


You're a moron:
Elimination of federal funding would result in fewer programs, less journalism - especially local journalism - and eventually the loss of public radio stations, particularly in rural and economically distressed communities.


But thanks for playing.
 
2012-10-14 12:58:28 AM  

Doc Daneeka: Democrats need to get off the Muppets thing. It's not going to change a damn thing in the election, and it looks amateur to try to pump this up into a big issue. And 5-year-olds don't vote.

Yes, Romney's threat to cut the Corporation from Public Broadcasting (and the 0.01% of the federal budget that it represents) was ridiculous and unserious, unbefitting of someone supposedly serious about tackling the budget in a substantive way.

But Democrats need to attack Romney's budget ideas on the whole, and not lose the forest for this one tree.


The problem is killing Big Bird is, thus far, one of the only specifics the Romney campaign has named.
 
2012-10-14 01:09:16 AM  
The clubbing, teargas, and taser videos should prove interesting.

I'll be looking forward to the comments from the old guys in the balcony.
 
2012-10-14 01:20:59 AM  

Funbags:
I guess that's why networks like Nickelodeon and Disney are so unprofitable.


They are also beholden to their shareholders, their stockholders, their wall street sycophants, and their corporate quarterly profits.

Get back to me when Spongebob or any Disney tv show has been on for 45 years (Washington Week), 43 years (Sesame Street), 40 years (Masterpiece Theater), 39 years (Great Performances), 37 years (NOVA), 36 years (PBS News Hour), 33 years (Mr Rogers Neighborhood), 29 years (Nature), or any other show on PBS that isn't designed to sell you sh*t you don't need, but to teach you something you don't know.

PBS stands for PUBLIC BROADCASTING SYSTEM, not Profits, Bullsh*t and Suckups. It was established as a non-commercial alternative to the hucksters, scam artists and scumbags which infest the airwaves of commercial television, and has done a fantastic job of staying away (for the most part) from the sh*tstorm of corporate influence when and where it can.

They put good, intelligent, thought provoking programs on the air without having to sweat every fraction of a ratings point and what it means to money-grubbing advertisers. I know when I turn to my local PBS station my brain will be filled, not emptied, and I don't mind my tax dollars making sure it stays that way.
 
2012-10-14 02:42:55 AM  

bmihura: Let's try the Libertarian approach, since the Democrats and Republicans have joined forces to tank the economy.


Let's not, since Libertarianism Makes You Stupid.
 
2012-10-14 02:46:47 AM  

anfrind: tomWright:

Your trolling is bad and you should feel bad.


I was hoping tomWright would give us another classic like "the anti-male anti-white narrative of the extreme racist left."
 
2012-10-14 08:39:06 AM  
Wow, quite a few of the most rarely seen Fark IndependentTM trolls have turned up in this thread.

What a truly odd thread for them to congregate on.

This Big Bird stuff really seems to have pushed their buttons for some reason. I suspect that they always thought Snuffleupagus was a Libertarian.
 
2012-10-14 08:53:22 AM  
When PBS goes from broadcasting 12 hours per day to broadcasting 24 hours a day sometimes having three channels per viewing area (with HD tv) , I can have little sympathy . We all have to make sacrifices these days.
 
2012-10-14 09:25:03 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Benjimin_Dover: Dwight_Yeast: Whodat: So then cutting funding to PBS won't actually be cutting funding to Sesame Street.

No, but cut funding to some PBS stations and they'll go off the air. Sesame Street will continue to exist; your kids just won't be able to watch it. (Christie already took WNJN off the air in New Jersey, because it replied on state funding).

But I have a feeling this isn't actually about PBS, but rather NPR, which is about the only non-biased media outlet out there. Yes, they still lean a little to the right, but that's mainly because they work hard to present both sides of any story they report. In some parts of the country, they're the only source for local news, which means there are people out there who are getting unbiased reporting and not being fed propaganda, which is why NPR must go.

That's some good stuff you're smoking.

You're a moron:
Elimination of federal funding would result in fewer programs, less journalism - especially local journalism - and eventually the loss of public radio stations, particularly in rural and economically distressed communities.

But thanks for playing.


You're welcome. When are you going to join in? I wasn't talking about whatever that was you just linked to. I'll thank you for playing once I detect play from you.
 
2012-10-14 09:25:04 AM  

BullBearMS: that accomplishes nothing.


No, no. That stays in.
 
2012-10-14 09:31:43 AM  

Biological Ali: Doc Daneeka: Democrats need to get off the Muppets thing. It's not going to change a damn thing in the election, and it looks amateur to try to pump this up into a big issue. And 5-year-olds don't vote.

Yes, Romney's threat to cut the Corporation from Public Broadcasting (and the 0.01% of the federal budget that it represents) was ridiculous and unserious, unbefitting of someone supposedly serious about tackling the budget in a substantive way.

But Democrats need to attack Romney's budget ideas on the whole, and not lose the forest for this one tree.

The problem is killing Big Bird is, thus far, one of the only specifics the Romney campaign has named.


There is a sea of Democrats and assorted liberals out there talking about how bad Romney's plan is going to be for the country.

That means you are doing one of the following.

1. Calling them all morons for opposing something that they could not possibly know what the details of it are.
2. Lying.
 
2012-10-14 10:13:44 AM  

Benjimin_Dover: Biological Ali: Doc Daneeka: Democrats need to get off the Muppets thing. It's not going to change a damn thing in the election, and it looks amateur to try to pump this up into a big issue. And 5-year-olds don't vote.

Yes, Romney's threat to cut the Corporation from Public Broadcasting (and the 0.01% of the federal budget that it represents) was ridiculous and unserious, unbefitting of someone supposedly serious about tackling the budget in a substantive way.

But Democrats need to attack Romney's budget ideas on the whole, and not lose the forest for this one tree.

The problem is killing Big Bird is, thus far, one of the only specifics the Romney campaign has named.

There is a sea of Democrats and assorted liberals out there talking about how bad Romney's plan is going to be for the country.

That means you are doing one of the following.

1. Calling them all morons for opposing something that they could not possibly know what the details of it are.
2. Lying.


I wouldn't rule out the "morons" explanation just yet.
 
2012-10-14 02:10:10 PM  

BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: Obama's tried to do things like close Gitmo

Obama never tried to close Gitmo. He tried to move it into an unused prison on US soil instead.

In ordering the federal government to acquire an Illinois prison to house terrorism suspects who are currently held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, President Obama on Tuesday took a major step toward shutting down the military detention facility that its detractors say had become a potent recruitment tool for Al Qaeda.

Administration officials acknowledged that the move would require Congressional approval, since Congress now bars Guantánamo detainees from being brought onto American soil unless they face prosecution, and some of the detainees may be indefinitely confined without being tried.

That's not closing Gitmo. That's moving it onto US soil where they admit they wanted to keep on holding people forever without a trial.

Here's what the ACLU had to say at the time:

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

"The creation of a 'Gitmo North' in Illinois is hardly a meaningful step forward. Shutting down Guantánamo will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its lawless policies onshore.

"Alarmingly, all indications are that the administration plans to continue its predecessor's policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location. Such a policy is completely at odds with our democratic commitment to due process and human rights whether it's occurring in Cuba or in Illinois. In fact, while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies. It is unimaginable that the Obama administration is using the same justification as the Bush administration used to undercut centuries of legal jurisprudence and the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the right to confront one's accusers.

Then, of course, we have the fact t ...


Obama wanted Gitmo closed and the inmates brought here so they could actually be tried. Most Republicans and some Democrats went pants-shiattingly crazy about the thought of "DEM EBIL TERRIERISTS TOUCHING USA SOIL!!" and fought to stop it, screeching about doomsday images of the inmates breaking out and running amok like something out of Batman's Arkham Asylum.

Also like how you keep responding to something I said two days ago while ignoring everyone else's much more recent posts and questions.
 
2012-10-14 03:42:13 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: There is a sea of Democrats and assorted liberals out there talking about how bad Romney's plan is going to be for the country.

That means you are doing one of the following.

1. Calling them all morons for opposing something that they could not possibly know what the details of it are.
2. Lying.


3. You're not very good at putting together a logical argument, and in particular, don't know what a false dichotomy is.
4. You're trolling this thread.
 
2012-10-14 06:06:41 PM  
dl.dropbox.com
dl.dropbox.com
dl.dropbox.com
dl.dropbox.com
dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-10-14 06:09:25 PM  

BullBearMS: Both sides are bad, so stop voting for both of them.


Just give up, throw your hands up in the air and declare a pox on both your houses?

That's your plan?

Is pouting optional or mandatory in this inspiring vision for change you've come up with here?

I assume you have a newsletter.

*blink*
 
2012-10-14 07:01:33 PM  
After Romney is elected, I hope he shuts that whole PBS network and all it's crappy programming down. Good riddance.
 
2012-10-15 05:39:29 AM  

quatchi: I assume you have a newsletter.


If that guy has a newsletter, it's behind the counter and double-wrapped in burlap and plastic.
 
2012-10-16 09:49:53 PM  

Xenomech: [dl.dropbox.com image 475x315]
[dl.dropbox.com image 475x315]
[dl.dropbox.com image 475x315]
[dl.dropbox.com image 475x315]
[dl.dropbox.com image 475x315]


What really puzzles me about people who put dumb sh*t up like this is... here in the real world, SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE ELECTED TO THAT OFFICE.
Whether it's a governor, a senator, a representative, a city council member, the president or the local alderman... there will be someone in that seat
come November 7th. Choosing the "lesser of two evils" may be the only choice there is. If you don't choose, the choice will be made for you.
"Bu-bu-but why can't we get better choices?" Well, it's because we only get to choose from among those who volunteer for the job. Politics through conscription has never and will never work,
and those who are wealthy and powerful enough will get out of serving anyway.
If you want to volunteer for the job, be my guest, but realize that there is a system that will ensure your high minded ideas fail, no matter what they are, because those who
really run this country and the world will make sure they do.
 
Displayed 253 of 253 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report