Welcome to Open Carnage

A resource for gamers and technology enthusiasts, with unique means of rewarding content creation and support. Have a wander to see why we're worth the time!

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Luke

Presidential Debate Thread

46 posts in this topic

I'm not sure what all this "they're saying Romney won, oh I'm losing so much faith in humanity" ass is about. Obama was unprepared, and it showed. Hell SNL, a self-admittedly left show, did a skit on the debate joking about how much Obama just sat there staring at his notes at times.

Also butthurt about PBS should stop, if you want to keep it on the air then donate money to it but there's no reason to spend tax money on it.

Like most people I'm not really loving either candidate, but Romney at least seems like he's got some of the right ideas economically. I was (and still am) honestly shocked at how badly Bush and Obama both fucked us over with billions upon billions of dollars to keep dying companies on life support. The entire principle of our economy is supply and demand; out with the old, in with the new. If a company can't keep itself up, there are ten smaller ones ready to compete for its place when it fails.

Edited by A Big Butt
Tiel likes this

Umh7x1l.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One or two people donating won't keep it online. Honestly, we spend billions a year on education. PBS is a crucial factor in preparing children for the public school system and give them a real headstart as far as learning is concerned. By all rights, it should remain.

I only caught the last 30 minutes of the primary presidential debate so no comment on that, though Obama really looked out of his element.

Luke likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what all this "they're saying Romney won, oh I'm losing so much faith in humanity" ass is about. Obama was unprepared, and it showed. Hell SNL, a self-admittedly left show, did a skit on the debate joking about how much Obama just sat there staring at his notes at times.

Also butthurt about PBS should stop, if you want to keep it on the air then donate money to it but there's no reason to spend tax money on it.

Like most people I'm not really loving either candidate, but Romney at least seems like he's got some of the right ideas economically. I was (and still am) honestly shocked at how badly Bush and Obama both fucked us over with billions upon billions of dollars to keep dying companies on life support. The entire principle of our economy is supply and demand; out with the old, in with the new. If a company can't keep itself up, there are ten smaller ones ready to compete for its place when it fails.

avg person spends only $1.03 on PBS in taxes. The fact that it's even a fucking campaign platform is astounding. We'll stop being "butthurt" when Romney stops trying to fix out economy by doing away with some of the nations cheapest yet most powerful institutions in teaching and informing the masses.

If you think Romney actually has even "some" of the right ideas, enlighten me on which.

Tiel likes this

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One or two people donating won't keep it online. Honestly, we spend billions a year on education. PBS is a crucial factor in preparing children for the public school system and give them a real headstart as far as learning is concerned. By all rights, it should remain.

If only one or two people want it on the air, why should it remain? As I said, supply and demand. You can't say it's a crucial part of the education of children - PBS isn't education. It's just public television; some educational programming ends up there, but the literal name of the station is "Public Broadcasting Station." If you honestly think that television is what our children need for mental development (which I don't agree with, but I'll get to that in a second) then there are already dozens of shows for that, ranging from Disney to Nickelodeon to Animal Planet and beyond.

avg person spends only $1.03 on PBS in taxes. The fact that it's even a fucking campaign platform is astounding.

Interesting anecdote, comrade. Now let's look at, instead of his exact example and nothing else, all of what it implied: small pieces of taxes add up, and there are quite a few relatively small government-funded projects going on that should not be receiving tax money.
PBS is a crucial factor in preparing children for the public school system and give them a real headstart as far as learning is concerned. By all rights, it should remain.
We'll stop being "butthurt" when Romney stops trying to fix out economy by doing away with some of the nations cheapest yet most powerful institutions in teaching and informing the masses.

As to television at all being a necessity for the education of young children, parents are supposed to be the source of a child's mental development before kindergarten (ideally long after that, too, but that's not what the discussion is about). If we're spending public money to fix something caused by bad parenting, it's a sad time indeed. I was barely allowed to watch TV at all when I was between the ages of 2 and 11. My mother didn't want me to become overstimulated by the bombardment of light, color, motion, and sound. She was correct in this, and I see it happen to little kids all over. Instead, she sat with me and talked; talked about letters and numbers, read to me about sign language and geography, and taught me what each musical note sounded like and where it was located.


Umh7x1l.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1)If only one or two people want it on the air, why should it remain? As I said, supply and demand. (2)You can't say it's a crucial part of the education of children - PBS isn't education. It's just public television; some educational programming ends up there, but the literal name of the station is "Public Broadcasting Station." If you honestly think that television is what our children need for mental development (which I don't agree with, but I'll get to that in a second) then there are already dozens of shows for that, ranging from Disney to Nickelodeon to Animal Planet and beyond.

1. [citation needed] I would like to see those numbers.

2. I've watched plenty of educational programming on PBS. It's hard for someone to oppose it if they've only watched a little bit of their programming.

Interesting anecdote, comrade. Now let's look at, instead of his exact example and nothing else, all of what it implied: (1)small pieces of taxes add up, (2)and there are quite a few relatively small government-funded projects going on that should not be receiving tax money.

1. Yes.

2. All of those small government-funded projects are usually things that happen in counties and states. That's not a national issue, which this debate is about.

(1)As to television at all being a necessity for the education of young children, parents are supposed to be the source of a child's mental development before kindergarten (ideally long after that, too, but that's not what the discussion is about). If we're spending public money to fix something caused by bad parenting, it's a sad time indeed. (2)I was barely allowed to watch TV at all when I was between the ages of 2 and 11. (3)My mother didn't want me to become overstimulated by the bombardment of light, color, motion, and sound. She was correct in this, and I see it happen to little kids all over. Instead, she sat with me and talked; talked about letters and numbers, read to me about sign language and geography, and taught me what each musical note sounded like and where it was located.

1. That's subjective. That's like saying that because a group of people decide they like broccoli more that everyone else should like broccoli more.

2. That's your parents decision. You're now implying that because you were raised this way that everyone should act like this. Once again, subjective.

3. Could you clarify this? If anything, wouldn't this make you more aware of your surroundings? As for me, I'm a very visual person and I have to visually see something to understand it. When you start going into the psychology of it, you start pushing the debate further and further away from the point.

People have different cognitive functions, although some diagnosis is blatant stereotyping. Something that I've learned, is that there are two sides of the MBTI spectrum. Extroverts and Introverts. Extroverts are more sociable and like interaction compared to Introverts who like to think and stay in their heads rather than have the traits of an Extrovert.

From what I'm reading, I would guess (and only guess) that you're extroverted and learn through long discussion. Some people (like me) can learn more by seeing things visually demonstrated and thinking about it. This is why TV is great for people like me, because I can see things visually and remember them visually.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the main point, I really don't think PBS has ANYTHING to do with our current situation. Ripping on PBS is like ripping on NOAA. It barely makes a dent in the budget. The fact that people fall for this unimportant shit as a debate topic shows that this country is brainwashed to all hell. You can cut as many federal programs as you want, but the main issue still stands. We have no fucking jobs. Period. Military spending is through the roof and the USD is inflating. It will continue to inflate. Why? Because the federal reserve has no chain of command above or below it to regulate it. It is it's own entity and might as well be considered a rouge organization that prints off money to dump the economy.

The government gives a company money or a politician backs a company for supporting them and then the company ends up outsourcing to China for low wage workers, cheap production, and reaping profits. We could be doing that same thing here. That's the issue that should be debated right now instead of OH MY GURD PBS SO BAD.

Edited by AppleSmack

Linux/Unix | InfoSec | Electronics | Radios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only one or two people want it on the air, why should it remain? As I said, supply and demand. You can't say it's a crucial part of the education of children - PBS isn't education. It's just public television; some educational programming ends up there, but the literal name of the station is "Public Broadcasting Station." If you honestly think that television is what our children need for mental development (which I don't agree with, but I'll get to that in a second) then there are already dozens of shows for that, ranging from Disney to Nickelodeon to Animal Planet and beyond.

Interesting anecdote, comrade. Now let's look at, instead of his exact example and nothing else, all of what it implied: small pieces of taxes add up, and there are quite a few relatively small government-funded projects going on that should not be receiving tax money.

As to television at all being a necessity for the education of young children, parents are supposed to be the source of a child's mental development before kindergarten (ideally long after that, too, but that's not what the discussion is about). If we're spending public money to fix something caused by bad parenting, it's a sad time indeed. I was barely allowed to watch TV at all when I was between the ages of 2 and 11. My mother didn't want me to become overstimulated by the bombardment of light, color, motion, and sound. She was correct in this, and I see it happen to little kids all over. Instead, she sat with me and talked; talked about letters and numbers, read to me about sign language and geography, and taught me what each musical note sounded like and where it was located.

Not everyone has the luxury of sitting down and chatting with the offspring they suffered so much to bring into this world. PBS helps correct this by offerring educational programs in a fun and intuitive way, easily understood by pre-children. If we're going to make the Amish Argument here, I'd like to point out that today's world is dominated by technology. We have teenagers wearing out their eyes staring at tiny little screens, giving themselves carpal tunnel syndrome by hitting tiny virtual keys.

The goal of PBS is, in comparison, quite noble. Adults don't want their kids watching silly humor cartoons that only serve to forever misshape their spawn's outlook of life. Sprout is an option, but that is a paid service not available to much of the working class. PBS offers only educational programs for 2/3rds of the day.

The only purpose cutting it would serve is to deprive a lot of the next generation of a crucial learning tool, ergo, making them dumber. If you don't want this, you won't vote for Romney, who's mostly shutting down our civil services in some complex math equation to meet his goals, one of which is sending more people to the Middle East to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone has the luxury of sitting down and chatting with the offspring they suffered so much to bring into this world. PBS helps correct this by offerring educational programs in a fun and intuitive way, easily understood by pre-children. If we're going to make the Amish Argument here, I'd like to point out that today's world is dominated by technology. We have teenagers wearing out their eyes staring at tiny little screens, giving themselves carpal tunnel syndrome by hitting tiny virtual keys.

I already covered the first part. There are plenty of stations that fund themselves (as they are, in fact, businesses) that provide a lot more educational programming. As for the italicized part, that doesn't seem relevant.
The goal of PBS is, in comparison, quite noble. Adults don't want their kids watching silly humor cartoons that only serve to forever misshape their spawn's outlook of life.
If you're implying that that's what I suggested as an alternative, it isn't. When I mentioned Disney and Nick, I was referring to shows like Dora and Mickey's Playhouse.
The only purpose cutting it would serve is to deprive a lot of the next generation of a crucial learning tool, ergo, making them dumber.
It's that word... 'crucial.' That's what bothers me. Will children literally be no longer able to function if PBS loses its government funding? It is redundant to many, many other things that already exist. It is a relatively small use of tax money, yes; but as I said, when small unneeded parts are cut in unison it adds up to quite a bit.

I forgot to mention, by the way - it's not a platform, WiC, it's one small point he was making as a projection from his platform. I'm not defending his entire platform, only that small point. Its implications strike me as actions that are very necessary to recovering from our massive debt.

Edited by A Big Butt

Umh7x1l.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.