• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Obama has material, but the problem is he had material before the first debate and failed to do anything with it so i don't expect much better.

It's not easy to do anything with material when its effectiveness is predicated on the assumption that his challenger won't walk back literally everything he's said over the past 18 months in the span of 90 minutes
 
Even the democrats at work thought Romney was great last night, and don't even want to talk about Obama's performance. And the main takeaway was indeed Big Bird; someone printed one of those Save Big Bird ads and passed it around to patients. This is a very liberal area of Michigan and I got the impression that everyone thought Obama shat the bed.

Once again, Obama could have easily retorted on Sesame Street last night. Now if he does it in the next debate it'll feel rehearsed
 
Even the democrats at work thought Romney was great last night, and don't even want to talk about Obama's performance. And the main takeaway was indeed Big Bird; someone printed one of those Save Big Bird ads and passed it around to patients. This is a very liberal area of Michigan and I got the impression that everyone thought Obama shat the bed.

Once again, Obama could have easily retorted on Sesame Street last night. Now if he does it in the next debate it'll feel rehearsed
Yeah he's probably gonna lose michigan now

charliebrown.jpg
 
Holy crap. Didn't realize it was that big. I would cut funding to it, too. But then again, i am for the government really only having their fingers in necessary pies.

Alot of poor people can't afford basic cable so all they have is PBS to leave their kid drones in front of the telly. I don't condone television parenting but if it's gonna happen, I'd rather them be watching PBS kid's shows than some trashy day time talk shows with perpetual paternal DNA testing topics. Not to mention the performance arts, documentaries and science shows during prime time.
 

East Lake

Member
It's not easy to do anything with material when its effectiveness is predicated on the assumption that his challenger won't walk back literally everything he's said over the past 18 months in the span of 90 minutes
There's probably plenty of snappy remarks you could use to show the watchers how Mitt was acting like a used car salesman. I just don't think it should be surprising for him. The right as a whole has become more and more bold running against a completely fictional socialist Obama and he shouldn't be surprised Mitt will do anything to be president. Call it like it is, Clinton called it a alternative universe. Whatever works, he should've prepared for this.
 
There's probably plenty of snappy remarks you could use to show the watchers how Mitt was acting like a used car salesman. I just don't think it should be surprising for him. The right as a whole has become more and more bold running against a completely fictional socialist Obama and he shouldn't be surprised Mitt will do anything to be president. Call it like it is, Clinton called it a alternative universe. Whatever works, he should've prepared for this.

Prepare for this... by actually becoming fictional socialist Obama!

They'll never expect it!
 

fenners

Member
Alot of poor people can't afford basic cable so all they have is PBS to leave their kid drones in front of the telly. I don't condone television parenting but if it's gonna happen, I'd rather them be watching PBS kid's shows than some trashy day time talk shows with perpetual paternal DNA testing topics. Not to mention the performance arts, documentaries and science shows during prime time.

The money mostly doesn't go to "PBS" per se. It's mostly funding local stations, filling in their budget shortfalls etc, around the country.

This is a year old, but still solid:

http://www.quora.com/What-portion-of-PBS-funding-comes-from-the-federal-government

PBS is funded indirectly by Congress through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB; which funds both PBS and National Public Radio). For fiscal year 2010, $281m out of CPB's $422m appropriation went to public television, $210m to local stations and $71m to PBS directly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pub...). In 2010, PBS had revenues of around $570m (http://www.pbs.org/about/media/a...), meaning federal funding via CPB accounted for about 12% of PBS 2010 annual revenues. Note that some of that federal funding for local stations will also make it back indirectly to PBS in the form of programming fees, so the total percentage could be considered higher.

It's not like PBS the TV station gets a big cheque directly from the government.
 

Kusagari

Member
I somehow doubt the main takeaway of the night being "Big Bird" could possibly be to Romney's benefit.

Nobody remembers anything he actually proposed beyond wanting to fire a fictional character.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
And, etch-a-sketching your way through a debate is better than what I saw last night from Obama. At least when Bush took shots from Kerry, he hit right back. He didn't miss major opportunities like the $716 billion medicare cut kerfuffle, and Romney lying his ass off about his tax policies.

It's not as if Romney's performance was good. It was mediocre at best. Bush or Kerry would have kicked his ass.
Romney's strategy is ripped straight from Kosmo's and PD's playbooks, and PoliGAF has certainly proven time and again how effective it is to fight them on their own turf...
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
...

I can't wait until next week when we get post-debate polls

You read the same article, so why are you still bullshitting?

fivethirtyeight-1004-pd2_2-blog480.jpg


In several other cases, however, the instant-reaction polls did not correlate with the change in head-to-head polls. Before Wednesday night, the second-clearest margin of victory for a challenging candidate in the CNN poll came in 2008, when Mr. Obama was declared the winner of the third presidential debate by a 27-point margin. However, his opponent John McCain actually gained slightly in the polls instead just after that debate.
EVERYBODY PANIC

Over all, the relationship between the winner of the instant-reaction poll and the change in head-to-head polls is positive, although not statistically significant.

fivethirtyeight-1004-pd2_3-blog480.jpg


You don't say!

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...-and-more-on-debate-instant-polls/#more-35530


Pay attention.
 
So that word can still be used?

Not being a smartass, but I'm honestly starting to get confused about which words are ok and which are ban-worthy offenses.
 
So that word can still be used?

Not being a smartass, but I'm honestly starting to get confused about which words are ok and which are ban-worthy offenses.

Best way to be safe: never use any slang terms for women or woman parts. I don't even say "boobs" on GAF anymore.

Follow my advice and you'll never be banned
 

Trakdown

Member
So if PBS is funded through the CPB, does that mean Mitt advocated the government shutting down a corporation?
trollface.jpg

Also, I can't believe how much attention the Big Bird line is getting. Even weirder that this isn't the first time the conservatives have hated on the muppets.
 

RDreamer

Member
What might be interesting is that now apparently the money flow is going to keep going to Romney instead of being thrown at down-ticket races. Obama still has this on lockdown, so a good performance in that debate by Romney might actually help the dems overall.
 

Aylinato

Member
I took this image which I did not make, but love

ObamaSaveBigBird_zpsaca72d13.jpg



and made two avatars with


ObamaSaveBigBird_zps887dc30c.jpg


ObamaSaveBigBird_zps1b73f2a4.jpg


You may want to rehost or save as my PB is free account
 

Paches

Member
Also, I can't believe how much attention the Big Bird line is getting. Even weirder that this isn't the first time the conservatives have hated on the muppets.

It is something easy for people to latch on to. More so than something like Simpson Bowles or what have you.
 
Yea right, when pigs fly.

Well, he didn't press him bad, but made it clear as he was letting the surrogate off the hook that Romney does not have a clear tax plan, very vague about details, and wants to unveil his tax plan after he gets elected. I'm sitting in airport lobby and CNN is playing.
 

Pre

Member
Romney delivered an excellent performance. There were moments where I wanted him to go into more of a full-throated defense of conservatism, but he had to moderate himself a bit and I think it worked well. I think he delivered exactly the right message when it comes to taxes -- conservatives aren't interested in tax rates and such in an abstract sense; They want to find the best combination of revenue and rates to encourage investment and job growth. Lowering taxes isn't about rubbing the backs of the rich -- it's about putting money back in the economy and therefore increasing revenue. Jacking up rates on stuff like capital gains only encourages investors to shelter their money.
 
Romney delivered an excellent performance. There were moments where I wanted him to go into more of a full-throated defense of conservatism, but he had to moderate himself a bit and I think it worked well. I think he delivered exactly the right message when it comes to taxes -- conservatives aren't interested in tax rates and such in an abstract sense; They want to find the best combination of revenue and rates to encourage investment and job growth. Lowering taxes isn't about rubbing the backs of the rich -- it's about putting money back in the economy and therefore increasing revenue. Jacking up rates on stuff like capital gains only encourages investors to shelter their money.

Who is his tax plan benefiting? The middle class? How can he lower taxes on the middle class while keeping it revenue neutral? There aren't enough loopholes that exclusively affect rich people to do that. I'm asking this seriously.

Also, there has been no evidence that people will stash their money away if capital gains goes back up to 20%. None whatsoever.
 
Romney delivered an excellent performance. There were moments where I wanted him to go into more of a full-throated defense of conservatism, but he had to moderate himself a bit and I think it worked well. I think he delivered exactly the right message when it comes to taxes -- conservatives aren't interested in tax rates and such in an abstract sense; They want to find the best combination of revenue and rates to encourage investment and job growth. Lowering taxes isn't about rubbing the backs of the rich -- it's about putting money back in the economy and therefore increasing revenue. Jacking up rates on stuff like capital gains only encourages investors to shelter their money.

All historical evidence points to the exact opposite. Lowering rates encourages hoarding of cash with less risk.

This whole "pt money back into the economy" does not work unless it's strictly middle class incomes and lower class incomes we're talking about.

And growing the deficit even more puts negative pressure on the currency. This is not good policy.


If you're going to have claims like "jacking up rates on stuff like capital gains only encourages investors to shelter their money" you need to back it up, cuz I got examples of the exact opposite happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom