Romney says he'll kill PBS?!!

bravo said:
Thats it.....thats your childish lame answer?......Do you know what a liberal pinhead is....?

Can't you defend the whopping lie you tried to pass off ......
Click to expand...

You are making the assertion that I am lying. Where is your proof?

You ignored the FACT that the Republicans have been playing this card for decades. That makes you a pinhead by your own definition.

I will find a source on Bush's attempts to turn PBS into right wing proaganda tool. I remember reading the news accounts.
 
bravo said:

Heres the transcripts, you lying asshole .....show us where he said
"he'll kill PBS?!! "
Click to expand...

Rmoney said: “I’m sorry, Jim, I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS,” he said to Lehrer. “I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I’m not going to keep spending money on things, borrowing money from China to pay for it.

The thesaurus says:

[TD] stop [/TD]

[TD]Part of Speech: [/TD]
[TD]verb [/TD]

[TD]Definition: [/TD]
[TD]bring or come to a halt or end [/TD]

[TD]Synonyms: [/TD]

[TD]be over, blow off, break, break off, call it a day, cease, close, cold turkey, come to a standstill, conclude, cool it, cut out, cut short, desist, discontinue, draw up, drop, end, finish, halt, hang it up, hold,kill, pause, pull up, put an end to, quit, quit cold, refrain, run its course, scrub, shut down, sign off, stall, stand, stay, tarry, terminate, wind up, wrap up
[/TD]
 
For the pinheads.

...

Ten years ago, the Gingrich Congress briefly toyed with the idea of defunding public broadcasting--an event we all should remember, because our liberal friends and relatives are still e-mailing us petitions to stop it. According to The Nation, when the conservative PBS personality Ben Wattenberg heard that public TV might lose its federal support he said, "What! Just when we've taken it over?"

The source for the quote wasn't clear, and it's possible the statement was misattributed. But whether or not the man said those words, the Republicans certainly embraced the thought.

In 1992, after conservative senators raised a stink about some programs on the leftist Pacifica radio network, Congress attached its subsidy for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to a rule reiterating the need for "objectivity and balance." In the ensuing decade, despite the short-lived Gingrich proposal, subsidies to the CPB actually increased. Meanwhile, the politics on display on PBS and NPR--even, for a while, on Pacifica--edged a bit to the right. Wattenberg got a public TV gig. So did Fred Barnes. So did Peggy Noonan.

Now Ken Tomlinson, the CPB's Republican chairman, is living Ben Wattenberg's dream. He has encouraged PBS to launch more conservative programs, while relentlessly criticizing Now with Bill Moyers for its leftist leanings. He hired an outside consultant to review Now's political slant, and he may arrange a similar study of NPR's Middle East coverage. He has foisted ombudsmen on PBS and NPR (which already had an ombudsman), telling them to monitor the networks for bias; they answer to Mary Catherine Andrews, last seen working as a communications officer at the Bush White House. When two Democratic congressmen protested all this, they called Tomlinson "a source of political interference into public broadcasting."


That he is. But the deeper source of interference is public broadcasting itself. Government money has always come with political strings.

Read it all

http://reason.com/archives/2005/08/01/a-rumble-on-sesame-street

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Tomlinson#CPB_tenure

Tomlinson was appointed as chairman of the CPB board by President George W. Bush, for a two-year term, in September 2003. He embarked upon a mission to purge CPB of what he perceived as "liberal bias".[SUP][6][/SUP] His efforts sparked complaints of political pressure.[SUP][7][/SUP] Broadcasting & Cable magazine wrote when Tomlinson "...uses terms like “fair and balanced” in talking about what PBS should be, it is understandably seen as code guaranteed to evoke charges of the “Foxification” of PBS and raise alarm bells with liberals and moderates, as well as with viewers who just don’t care about a political agenda at all."[SUP][8][/SUP]

 
Big Bird will do fine. I've noticed they began using commercials back when my girls were young enough to watch that junk. Thankfully we can now watch Doctor Who on BBC and we don't have to subject ourselves to PBS...
 
Damocles said:
Big Bird will do fine. I've noticed they began using commercials back when my girls were young enough to watch that junk. Thankfully we can now watch Doctor Who on BBC and we don't have to subject ourselves to PBS...
Click to expand...

Of course, he would. PBS does not need government money. I seriously doubt Romney will cut a dime from it, though.

The non profit model works for the fine paper that brings us politifact.com. They are beating the crap out of the Tampa Tribune in every way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times
 
TheJanitor said:
Of course, he would. PBS does not need government money. I seriously doubt Romney will cut a dime from it, though.

The non profit model works for the fine paper that brings us politifact.com. They are beating the crap out of the Tampa Tribune in every way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times
Click to expand...

It would depend on what compromise he may have to meet to get what he wants. It's built in to his plan, that kind of reach across the aisle hasn't been seen in a long while. Personally I think it is way better than what we are currently being subjected to.
 
signalmankenneth said:
Debate-2012.jpg


romney-pbs-got-real.jpg


big-bird-got-his-back.jpg


big-bird-wtf.jpg


Oscar-the-Grouch-defends-Big-Bird.jpg


romney-hard-on-sesame-street.jpg
Click to expand...

I think Romney said he would get gov't out of big bird, or something like that. da?
 
Damocles said:
Big Bird will do fine. I've noticed they began using commercials back when my girls were young enough to watch that junk. Thankfully we can now watch Doctor Who on BBC and we don't have to subject ourselves to PBS...
Click to expand...

How exactly are Sesame Street and Doctor Who alike? They both have a phone booth lurking on the corner? :D
 
christiefan915 said:
Rmoney said: “I’m sorry, Jim, I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS,” he said to Lehrer. “I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I’m not going to keep spending money on things, borrowing money from China to pay for it.

The thesaurus says:

[TD] stop [/TD]

[TD]Part of Speech: [/TD]
[TD]verb [/TD]

[TD]Definition: [/TD]
[TD]bring or come to a halt or end [/TD]

[TD]Synonyms: [/TD]

[TD]be over, blow off, break, break off, call it a day, cease, close, cold turkey, come to a standstill, conclude, cool it, cut out, cut short, desist, discontinue, draw up, drop, end, finish, halt, hang it up, hold,kill, pause, pull up, put an end to, quit, quit cold, refrain, run its course, scrub, shut down, sign off, stall, stand, stay, tarry, terminate, wind up, wrap up
[/TD]
Click to expand...

Kill THE SUBSIDY TO PBS ...Subsidy- an amount given to subsidize part of the cost.

Romney simply did not say he would "kill PBS" or "end PBS" or any other synonym you find in your thesaurus, he said he would KILL SUBSIDIES for PBS. As well he should, Big Bird is wealthier than Romney!
 
Bijou said:
Rather than a thousand cuts, how about a medium-sized chunk of great big cuts? Like Defense? Oil subsidies and other corporate welfare?
Click to expand...

Well, if you followed the debate the other night, Mitt schooled Obama on this very question. 10 years worth of subsidies to oil companies doesn't amount to the money Obama gave to Solyndra and Green Energy in a single stimulus package. All of it is on the table, and all of it will need to be cut in order to balance the budget. Demagoguing and trying to run the clock out, is not going to work. Burying your head in the sand, is not a solution. Pretending that all the needed cuts can come from removing a few tax perks and slashing defense, is not reality-based. And it's going to be way more than a thousand cuts, when all is said and done.
 
christiefan915 said:
You, Romney and facts... strangers in the night.

"Close to the halfway point in the debate, in response to a statement by President Obama that the oil industry gets "$4 billion a year in corporate welfare," Romney said "in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that's about 50 years' worth of what oil and gas receives, and you say Exxon and Mobil -- actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth.... But -- but don't forget, you put $90 billion -- like 50 years worth of breaks -- into solar and wind, to -- to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1."


[But]it's not $90 billion on solar and wind in one year, but less than two billion on solar, wind, transmission upgrades, electric cars, and other energy innovations over the last three years. It's not true that half of the companies getting those grants have failed: the actual failure rate is less than fifth of what Congress budgeted for. And one of the companies Romney mentioned as having failed, though it isn't as robust as its stockholders would like, is making loan payments early."

http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/government/elections/romneys-90-billion-untruth.html
Click to expand...

Romney incorrectly claimed the “$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world” was provided “in one year.” It was two.....Big deal....?

The seven sub-categories of “clean-energy” projects identified in the report were:

$29 billion for energy efficiency, including $5 billion for the weatherization of low-income homes
$10 billion to modernize the nation’s electric grid
$6 billion for domestic manufacturing of advanced batteries and other components of alternative vehicles and fuel technology
$18 billion for transit projects, including high-speed rail
$3 billion for researching and developing clean-coal technology
$3 billion for job training
$2 billion in manufacturing tax credits

So its 71 billion....another big whoop....?
He estimated Oil gets about at $2.8 billion, an estimate that would figure out to about 32 years...not 50...?
another big whoop....
That $90 billion figure included loan guarantees, not just grant money.

Notice Obama didn't deny any of it because he didn't know what the hell the amount was or over what
exact time period.....or exactly want oil gets and he didn't argue with the math estimate either....he didn't know.

No matter to me....its silly nit-picking details that don't change the thrust of the argument....Obama wasted
tens of billions on bs green schemes....

Obama claimed Clinton created 23 million jobs, most credit him with about an Increase of 20.8 million jobs
Should I harp about the 2 million ?
Obama started one segment with "When I walked into the Oval Office, etc...."
Should I be bitching about him still blaming others for todays conditions...don't he count at all as our president?
Obama called Donald Trump a small business....the federal government defines it as any business that employs fewer than 500 people. The Trump Organization employs 22,000 people. Big deal ?

I could nit pick the debate just like you, but its petty....so it don't, except to show you it goes both ways...

Your man lost, get over it...

For a slightly fairer view
http://www.politifact.com/
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Romney incorrectly claimed the “$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world” was provided “in one year.” It was two.....Big deal....?

The seven sub-categories of “clean-energy” projects identified in the report were:

$29 billion for energy efficiency, including $5 billion for the weatherization of low-income homes
$10 billion to modernize the nation’s electric grid
$6 billion for domestic manufacturing of advanced batteries and other components of alternative vehicles and fuel technology
$18 billion for transit projects, including high-speed rail
$3 billion for researching and developing clean-coal technology
$3 billion for job training
$2 billion in manufacturing tax credits

So its 71 billion....another big whoop....?
He estimated Oil gets about at $2.8 billion, an estimate that would figure out to about 32 years...not 50...?
another big whoop....
That $90 billion figure included loan guarantees, not just grant money.

Notice Obama didn't deny any of it because he didn't know what the hell the amount was or over what
exact time period.....or exactly want oil gets and he didn't argue with the math estimate either....he didn't know.

No matter to me....its silly nit-picking details that don't change the thrust of the argument....Obama wasted
tens of billions on bs green schemes....

Obama claimed Clinton created 23 million jobs, most credit him with about an Increase of 20.8 million jobs
Should I harp about the 2 million ?
Obama started one segment with "When I walked into the Oval Office, etc...."
Should I be bitching about him still blaming others for todays conditions...don't he count at all as our president?
Obama called Donald Trump a small business....the federal government defines it as any business that employs fewer than 500 people. The Trump Organization employs 22,000 people. Big deal ?

I could nit pick the debate just like you, but its petty....so it don't, except to show you it goes both ways...

Your man lost, get over it...

For a slightly fairer view
http://www.politifact.com/
Click to expand...

I never said my man won.

You're the kind of repub voter that gives all repubs a bad name. Romney's lies itemized and all you can say is "big whoop".
 
christiefan915 said:
I never said my man won.

You're the kind of repub voter that gives all repubs a bad name. Romney's lies itemized and all you can say is "big whoop".
Click to expand...

I was a Dem voter and supporter until I started to think for myself ...

Obama's lies and exaggerations pointed and all you can say is................nothing. Zip.
That double standard just works wonders for you, huh.....
Like I said, its petty nit-picking and that lets you lose sight of the bigger issue while dwelling on irrelevant details....
Its not the exact dollar amount or the no. of years thats important.....its the billions wasted on crap when the country is broke and borrowing like no tomorrow....
Like Romney pointed out...its immoral to saddle our kids with obscene debt while we feed our greed, blame everyone else, and go on our merry way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top