JoeBags7277 734 Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Well 2012 was a crucial election. Had we conservatives not sat home, we would have been spared the 2nd term of Obama. Romney wasn't the greatest choice in the world but still it was far preferable to what we have. Conservatives didn't stay home. When told to do so, they rallied around a terrible candidate. The reason he lost is that independents realized he was a terrible candidate, not because faux conservatives held to principle, and that's the same reason the GOP has an excellent chance to win in 2016, provided they can get out of their own way. Its hilarious that you and others still believe that last sentence. Romney is and was Obama. The most substantive difference was that Romney wanted to defund PBS. Some choice. boy the term terrible has become extremely relative now. Its hard for me to imagine ANYONE could honestly believe NOW Romney would have been a worse Pres than BHO has been. There's no doubt Obama has added new meaning to the world terrible as it relates to being the POTUS PBS doesn't need govt support. It operates at a profit. Unless you're sound asleep our govt is entertaining an $18 TRILLION debt. Do you think it is wise to continue subsidizing businesses that are operating profitably? I dont. That was a classic case of the media hanging a statement made by Romney around his neck like an anvil despite the fact that it makes perfect sense. I agree about PBS. To insinuate otherwise is to egregiously miss the point, which was that that was the only substantive disagreement he had with Obama in the campaign. Tough to get people jazzed about such a "stark contrast." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Well 2012 was a crucial election. Had we conservatives not sat home, we would have been spared the 2nd term of Obama. Romney wasn't the greatest choice in the world but still it was far preferable to what we have. Conservatives didn't stay home. When told to do so, they rallied around a terrible candidate. The reason he lost is that independents realized he was a terrible candidate, not because faux conservatives held to principle, and that's the same reason the GOP has an excellent chance to win in 2016, provided they can get out of their own way. Its hilarious that you and others still believe that last sentence. Romney is and was Obama. The most substantive difference was that Romney wanted to defund PBS. Some choice. boy the term terrible has become extremely relative now. Its hard for me to imagine ANYONE could honestly believe NOW Romney would have been a worse Pres than BHO has been. There's no doubt Obama has added new meaning to the world terrible as it relates to being the POTUS PBS doesn't need govt support. It operates at a profit. Unless you're sound asleep our govt is entertaining an $18 TRILLION debt. Do you think it is wise to continue subsidizing businesses that are operating profitably? I dont. That was a classic case of the media hanging a statement made by Romney around his neck like an anvil despite the fact that it makes perfect sense. I agree about PBS. To insinuate otherwise is to egregiously miss the point, which was that that was the only substantive disagreement he had with Obama in the campaign. Tough to get people jazzed about such a "stark contrast." You must have missed the debates..the contrasts were stark and easy to see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,354 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 Well 2012 was a crucial election. Had we conservatives not sat home, we would have been spared the 2nd term of Obama. Romney wasn't the greatest choice in the world but still it was far preferable to what we have. Conservatives didn't stay home. When told to do so, they rallied around a terrible candidate. The reason he lost is that independents realized he was a terrible candidate, not because faux conservatives held to principle, and that's the same reason the GOP has an excellent chance to win in 2016, provided they can get out of their own way. Its hilarious that you and others still believe that last sentence. Romney is and was Obama. The most substantive difference was that Romney wanted to defund PBS. Some choice. boy the term terrible has become extremely relative now. Its hard for me to imagine ANYONE could honestly believe NOW Romney would have been a worse Pres than BHO has been. There's no doubt Obama has added new meaning to the world terrible as it relates to being the POTUS PBS doesn't need govt support. It operates at a profit. Unless you're sound asleep our govt is entertaining an $18 TRILLION debt. Do you think it is wise to continue subsidizing businesses that are operating profitably? I dont. That was a classic case of the media hanging a statement made by Romney around his neck like an anvil despite the fact that it makes perfect sense. The government is not "supporting" PBS. The government is contracting educational programs from PBS which they pay them for. The non-educational portion of PBS programming is viewer-supported. But it you want to rail against the programming that PBS is providing the government, be my guest. I'm betting the voting public knows value when they see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 PBS is a liberal propaganda network funded by the taxpayer. They is evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 Off topic but last night's frontline on ebola was fantastic. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/outbreak/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,471 Posted May 6, 2015 Author Share Posted May 6, 2015 Well 2012 was a crucial election. Had we conservatives not sat home, we would have been spared the 2nd term of Obama. Romney wasn't the greatest choice in the world but still it was far preferable to what we have. Conservatives didn't stay home. When told to do so, they rallied around a terrible candidate. The reason he lost is that independents realized he was a terrible candidate, not because faux conservatives held to principle, and that's the same reason the GOP has an excellent chance to win in 2016, provided they can get out of their own way. Its hilarious that you and others still believe that last sentence. Romney is and was Obama. The most substantive difference was that Romney wanted to defund PBS. Some choice. boy the term terrible has become extremely relative now. Its hard for me to imagine ANYONE could honestly believe NOW Romney would have been a worse Pres than BHO has been. There's no doubt Obama has added new meaning to the world terrible as it relates to being the POTUS PBS doesn't need govt support. It operates at a profit. Unless you're sound asleep our govt is entertaining an $18 TRILLION debt. Do you think it is wise to continue subsidizing businesses that are operating profitably? I dont. That was a classic case of the media hanging a statement made by Romney around his neck like an anvil despite the fact that it makes perfect sense. The government is not "supporting" PBS. The government is contracting educational programs from PBS which they pay them for. The non-educational portion of PBS programming is viewer-supported. But it you want to rail against the programming that PBS is providing the government, be my guest. I'm betting the voting public knows value when they see it. If I had a dollar for every time that PBS/NPR canard is brought up, I could retire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 Well 2012 was a crucial election. Had we conservatives not sat home, we would have been spared the 2nd term of Obama. Romney wasn't the greatest choice in the world but still it was far preferable to what we have. Conservatives didn't stay home. When told to do so, they rallied around a terrible candidate. The reason he lost is that independents realized he was a terrible candidate, not because faux conservatives held to principle, and that's the same reason the GOP has an excellent chance to win in 2016, provided they can get out of their own way. Its hilarious that you and others still believe that last sentence. Romney is and was Obama. The most substantive difference was that Romney wanted to defund PBS. Some choice. boy the term terrible has become extremely relative now. Its hard for me to imagine ANYONE could honestly believe NOW Romney would have been a worse Pres than BHO has been. There's no doubt Obama has added new meaning to the world terrible as it relates to being the POTUS PBS doesn't need govt support. It operates at a profit. Unless you're sound asleep our govt is entertaining an $18 TRILLION debt. Do you think it is wise to continue subsidizing businesses that are operating profitably? I dont. That was a classic case of the media hanging a statement made by Romney around his neck like an anvil despite the fact that it makes perfect sense. The government is not "supporting" PBS. The government is contracting educational programs from PBS which they pay them for. The non-educational portion of PBS programming is viewer-supported. But it you want to rail against the programming that PBS is providing the government, be my guest. I'm betting the voting public knows value when they see it. If I had a dollar for every time that PBS/NPR canard is brought up, I could retire. If thats the case why was there such a big frickin deal made by the left that Romney wanted to shut down bigbird? Of course he didn't and yes, I know that PBS has a lot of viewer support but they also have govt support which they really do not need. "How large is the federal subsidy to public broadcasting? It’s not exactly breaking the bank. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity created by Congress in 1967 to disperse funds to nonprofit broadcast outlets like PBS and NPR, is set to receive $445 million over the next two years. Per a statutoryformula, public television gets about 75 percent of this appropriation while public radio receives 25 percent." http://www.propublica.org/article/big-bird-debate-how-much-does-federal-funding-matter-to-public-broadcasting Admittedly it is not a big deal but within the context of, at some point, having to actually rein in an $18 trillion dollar naitonal debt it seems to me things like this must be looked at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,354 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 Well 2012 was a crucial election. Had we conservatives not sat home, we would have been spared the 2nd term of Obama. Romney wasn't the greatest choice in the world but still it was far preferable to what we have. Conservatives didn't stay home. When told to do so, they rallied around a terrible candidate. The reason he lost is that independents realized he was a terrible candidate, not because faux conservatives held to principle, and that's the same reason the GOP has an excellent chance to win in 2016, provided they can get out of their own way. Its hilarious that you and others still believe that last sentence. Romney is and was Obama. The most substantive difference was that Romney wanted to defund PBS. Some choice. boy the term terrible has become extremely relative now. Its hard for me to imagine ANYONE could honestly believe NOW Romney would have been a worse Pres than BHO has been. There's no doubt Obama has added new meaning to the world terrible as it relates to being the POTUS PBS doesn't need govt support. It operates at a profit. Unless you're sound asleep our govt is entertaining an $18 TRILLION debt. Do you think it is wise to continue subsidizing businesses that are operating profitably? I dont. That was a classic case of the media hanging a statement made by Romney around his neck like an anvil despite the fact that it makes perfect sense. The government is not "supporting" PBS. The government is contracting educational programs from PBS which they pay them for. The non-educational portion of PBS programming is viewer-supported. But it you want to rail against the programming that PBS is providing the government, be my guest. I'm betting the voting public knows value when they see it. If I had a dollar for every time that PBS/NPR canard is brought up, I could retire. If thats the case why was there such a big frickin deal made by the left that Romney wanted to shut down bigbird? Of course he didn't and yes, I know that PBS has a lot of viewer support but they also have govt support which they really do not need. "How large is the federal subsidy to public broadcasting? It’s not exactly breaking the bank. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity created by Congress in 1967 to disperse funds to nonprofit broadcast outlets like PBS and NPR, is set to receive $445 million over the next two years. Per a statutoryformula, public television gets about 75 percent of this appropriation while public radio receives 25 percent." http://www.propublic...ic-broadcasting Admittedly it is not a big deal but within the context of, at some point, having to actually rein in an $18 trillion dollar naitonal debt it seems to me things like this must be looked at. Well, Big Bird (Sesame Street) could be shut down by the Government. They fund it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 Well 2012 was a crucial election. Had we conservatives not sat home, we would have been spared the 2nd term of Obama. Romney wasn't the greatest choice in the world but still it was far preferable to what we have. Conservatives didn't stay home. When told to do so, they rallied around a terrible candidate. The reason he lost is that independents realized he was a terrible candidate, not because faux conservatives held to principle, and that's the same reason the GOP has an excellent chance to win in 2016, provided they can get out of their own way. Its hilarious that you and others still believe that last sentence. Romney is and was Obama. The most substantive difference was that Romney wanted to defund PBS. Some choice. boy the term terrible has become extremely relative now. Its hard for me to imagine ANYONE could honestly believe NOW Romney would have been a worse Pres than BHO has been. There's no doubt Obama has added new meaning to the world terrible as it relates to being the POTUS PBS doesn't need govt support. It operates at a profit. Unless you're sound asleep our govt is entertaining an $18 TRILLION debt. Do you think it is wise to continue subsidizing businesses that are operating profitably? I dont. That was a classic case of the media hanging a statement made by Romney around his neck like an anvil despite the fact that it makes perfect sense. The government is not "supporting" PBS. The government is contracting educational programs from PBS which they pay them for. The non-educational portion of PBS programming is viewer-supported. But it you want to rail against the programming that PBS is providing the government, be my guest. I'm betting the voting public knows value when they see it. If I had a dollar for every time that PBS/NPR canard is brought up, I could retire. If thats the case why was there such a big frickin deal made by the left that Romney wanted to shut down bigbird? Of course he didn't and yes, I know that PBS has a lot of viewer support but they also have govt support which they really do not need. "How large is the federal subsidy to public broadcasting? It’s not exactly breaking the bank. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity created by Congress in 1967 to disperse funds to nonprofit broadcast outlets like PBS and NPR, is set to receive $445 million over the next two years. Per a statutoryformula, public television gets about 75 percent of this appropriation while public radio receives 25 percent." http://www.propublic...ic-broadcasting Admittedly it is not a big deal but within the context of, at some point, having to actually rein in an $18 trillion dollar naitonal debt it seems to me things like this must be looked at. Well, Big Bird (Sesame Street) could be shut down by the Government. They fund it. operative words.."could be" but I seriously doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.