By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why do the presidential debates matter in the day of the Internet?

killerzX on 04 October 2012
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

It's perfectly valid, because PBS is a fine institution, if only for what it provides to children, and costs America little. Not like Oil Subsidies which, small as they may be, do nothing but line the pockets of big oil.

So killing PBS would be like getting rid of a good .txt file.

This is such a stupid meme. Those oil company "subsidies" are nothing more than the deductions that every company gets (domestic manufacturing, capital equipment, etc.), and oil companies still pay a much higher rate than other companies.

I know it's a daunting concept, but do try to understand that just because you're fond of PBS doesn't mean that everyone should pay for it.

It serves a public good. Things that serve public good get funded... publicly.

 you cant be serious with this post. can you?

 

parody.  you show it almost every day.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 04 October 2012
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

It's perfectly valid, because PBS is a fine institution, if only for what it provides to children, and costs America little. Not like Oil Subsidies which, small as they may be, do nothing but line the pockets of big oil.

So killing PBS would be like getting rid of a good .txt file.

This is such a stupid meme. Those oil company "subsidies" are nothing more than the deductions that every company gets (domestic manufacturing, capital equipment, etc.), and oil companies still pay a much higher rate than other companies.

I know it's a daunting concept, but do try to understand that just because you're fond of PBS doesn't mean that everyone should pay for it.

It serves a public good. Things that serve public good get funded... publicly.

 you cant be serious with this post. can you?

 

parody.  you show it almost every day.

Quite serious. Television needs a not-for-profit voice to attempt to counterbalance the commercialism in what is still the dominant medium, which isn't to say that commercialism is bad, but a haven from it is needed, and we should work to preserve that haven if we can.

Public good.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

badgenome on 04 October 2012
Mr Khan said:

Quite serious. Television needs a not-for-profit voice to attempt to counterbalance the commercialism in what is still the dominant medium, which isn't to say that commercialism is bad, but a haven from it is needed, and we should work to preserve that haven if we can.

Public good.

In a day and age when you can get strangers on the internet to Kickstart your next oil change, I don't think it's necessary for the federal government to spend money it doesn't have to keep afloat a channel that isn't watched by anyone over the age of 3 or under the age of 1000.



richardhutnik on 04 October 2012
gergroy said:
this thread seems like a damage control thread to me. Debates can matter, I refer you to the republican primary this year as proof.

Several things:

1. I said PRESIDENTIAL debate.  If you want to run a gauntlet of 20+ debates, then maybe, but the size is too small here.  

2. You need to see what I wrote before the debate, in response to someone who said to ignore issue of the week and just wait for the debate.  I was saying it didn't matter.



homer on 04 October 2012
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

It's perfectly valid, because PBS is a fine institution, if only for what it provides to children, and costs America little. Not like Oil Subsidies which, small as they may be, do nothing but line the pockets of big oil.

So killing PBS would be like getting rid of a good .txt file.

This is such a stupid meme. Those oil company "subsidies" are nothing more than the deductions that every company gets (domestic manufacturing, capital equipment, etc.), and oil companies still pay a much higher rate than other companies.

I know it's a daunting concept, but do try to understand that just because you're fond of PBS doesn't mean that everyone should pay for it.

It serves a public good. Things that serve public good get funded... publicly.

 you cant be serious with this post. can you?

 

parody.  you show it almost every day.

Quite serious. Television needs a not-for-profit voice to attempt to counterbalance the commercialism in what is still the dominant medium, which isn't to say that commercialism is bad, but a haven from it is needed, and we should work to preserve that haven if we can.

Public good.


How about we take those subsidies from the green energy companies to fund pbs? What was it, almost half of those companies still went under anyways right? And the surviving ones helped fund Obama's campaign right? Seems fishy...



"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." -My good friend Mark Aurelius

Around the Network
richardhutnik on 05 October 2012
homer said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

It's perfectly valid, because PBS is a fine institution, if only for what it provides to children, and costs America little. Not like Oil Subsidies which, small as they may be, do nothing but line the pockets of big oil.

So killing PBS would be like getting rid of a good .txt file.

This is such a stupid meme. Those oil company "subsidies" are nothing more than the deductions that every company gets (domestic manufacturing, capital equipment, etc.), and oil companies still pay a much higher rate than other companies.

I know it's a daunting concept, but do try to understand that just because you're fond of PBS doesn't mean that everyone should pay for it.

It serves a public good. Things that serve public good get funded... publicly.

 you cant be serious with this post. can you?

 

parody.  you show it almost every day.

Quite serious. Television needs a not-for-profit voice to attempt to counterbalance the commercialism in what is still the dominant medium, which isn't to say that commercialism is bad, but a haven from it is needed, and we should work to preserve that haven if we can.

Public good.


How about we take those subsidies from the green energy companies to fund pbs? What was it, almost half of those companies still went under anyways right? And the surviving ones helped fund Obama's campaign right? Seems fishy...

Or, could funnel billions to Halliburton in no bid contracts, and provide an exception named after them, so the components in the fracking liquid isn't subject to the regulations governing such areas.  Nah, don't need to do anything with green, just stick with fossil fuels, and say it is what matters.  Drill, baby, drill...



Ouroboros24 on 05 October 2012

It's like fisticuffs. 

We have to see these two go at it.  As the future president, I would want to have these two jump as many hurdles as they have too.  If we get rid of the debates, they'll have an easier route to presidency. 

After they get it, they'll be untouchable.  F that.  They want to be president so much, have them misspeak their lines.  Get their proclaimations crisscrossed.  Made fools of. 

I for one don't believe any of these presidents the last couple of years were the 'Great Gatsby' they should be.  They haven't succeeded.  I won't vote until we have someone genuine, genius and tough.  Don't know if there were any presidents like that. 



gergroy on 09 October 2012

Want proof that they matter? Just look at the new polls coming out / end thread



Marks on 09 October 2012

Shows how well each candidate can handle the pressure of being asked tough questions, and having to come up with a good answer on the spot.

Anyone can type out a good statement, but it's harder to say one out loud under the pressure of millions of people watching.