|
Post by New Mama on Oct 5, 2012 14:09:42 GMT -6
Big Bird: This year's Seamus ... Atta'boy.
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Oct 5, 2012 14:10:56 GMT -6
Like the market does a good job at getting rid of "the dogs" in commercial broadcast. Actually they do. If a show doesn't have viewers, advertisers don't pay for time. Econ 101...but you do know this. No?That's something of an oversimplification. They also go by demographics; shows with more desirable demographics with questionable ratings will be given a better shot than a show with undesirable demographics with the same ratings. NBC's "Whitney" would be a good example.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 5, 2012 14:21:25 GMT -6
This is beneath you Gordon. Romney specifically said he liked big bird and you stoop to this? You are right Antia... he didnt say "how" he liked Big Bird... maybe fried would have been better.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Oct 5, 2012 14:29:33 GMT -6
Actually they do. If a show doesn't have viewers, advertisers don't pay for time. Econ 101...but you do know this. No?That's something of an oversimplification. They also go by demographics; shows with more desirable demographics with questionable ratings will be given a better shot than a show with undesirable demographics with the same ratings. NBC's "Whitney" would be a good example. I don't understand the difference. I don't even know or have heard of 'Whitney'. I don't see that demographics ch-ch-changes my statement.
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Oct 5, 2012 14:50:46 GMT -6
Of course you never heard of "Whitney" (Whitney Cummings' show) because you don't fit the demographic. Thanks for proving my point.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Oct 5, 2012 15:16:41 GMT -6
Of course you never heard of "Whitney" (Whitney Cummings' show) because you don't fit the demographic. Thanks for proving my point. I just looked it up and found it does play in the Chicago market on Thursday's. So what's your point anyway.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Oct 5, 2012 15:20:14 GMT -6
This is beneath you Gordon. Romney specifically said he liked big bird and you stoop to this? You are right Antia... he didnt say "how" he liked Big Bird... maybe fried would have been better. Why not put Jim Lerher on that plater too because Mitt said he liked him too.
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Oct 5, 2012 15:25:49 GMT -6
Then you'd accuse Gordon of saying that Mitt was a cannibal. Face it, there's just no pleasing you.
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Oct 5, 2012 15:28:19 GMT -6
I just looked it up and found it does play in the Chicago market on Thursday's. So what's your point anyway. You said advertisers won't pay for time if a show doesn't have viewers. This show doesn't have high viewership, but it does appeal to a desirable demographic. Hence, it hasn't been cancelled. Yet.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 5, 2012 19:32:28 GMT -6
Gordon, you are completely missing the point. No true conservative has any love for Romney, nor will they defend his positions or his record. All he is to us at this moment is our only chance to kick Obama out of the White House and take our country back. And since he spanked O's ass last night, and may have taken home a few undecided voters, that is cause to celebrate. Nothing more. Jake, I thought you might enjoy this from The American Conservative...
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Oct 6, 2012 15:17:18 GMT -6
Gordon, you forgot the crucial difference between the DoD and the DoE: The first one is mandated by the Constitution, while the second one is prohibited by it.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 6, 2012 17:55:20 GMT -6
Please, do tell me where in the Constitution the DoD is mandated.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Oct 7, 2012 18:35:09 GMT -6
Please, do tell me where in the Constitution the DoD is mandated. I don't recall the section, but I do recall something about providing for the common defense. If I ever get out of this airport, I'll look it up.
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Oct 7, 2012 19:07:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Oct 7, 2012 19:25:45 GMT -6
One might assume, that transfer payments having been negligible before 1960, and all of the framers of the Constitution having been dead by 1860, that this was not what they meant.
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Oct 7, 2012 19:42:50 GMT -6
So, once again, we can agree that the the insistence of the NRA to allow every yahoo that can draw a breath the ability to own a gun was not what the framers of the Constitution meant by "the right to bear arms".
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 7, 2012 20:32:31 GMT -6
Please, do tell me where in the Constitution the DoD is mandated. I don't recall the section, but I do recall something about providing for the common defense. If I ever get out of this airport, I'll look it up. That is in the Preamble. But it does not say one word about the DoD. THAT is nothing more than another bloated bureaucracy in need of fat trimming, which is EXACTLY what that article from the American Conservative was pointing out. Until conservatives realize that the DoD is just that the "deficit reduction" talk is just... talk. The DoD is not mandated by the Constitution. The "common defense" is. In fact a standing army was about the last thing the framers of the Constitution wanted. Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Oct 7, 2012 20:35:09 GMT -6
You can agree to it if you like. I don't. Guns were commonplace and widely owned at the time the Constitution was written, so one can assume that the framers meant just that.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Oct 8, 2012 0:48:16 GMT -6
Clearly, I didn't mean that the Constitution mandated a cabinet-level department of the Federal Government with the title of "Department of Defense." If you seriously thought I was saying that, you are too stupid for me to be conversing with.
The Constitution explicitly states that it is the job of the Federal Government to protect the citizens of the country against foreign threats. It clearly does NOT give the Federal Government the power to regulate, administer, or fund any sort of educational programs. If you try to spin it any differently, you are a demagogue and nothing more......Jake
PS - finally out of the airport and back home
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 8, 2012 5:25:50 GMT -6
Gordon, you forgot the crucial difference between the DoD and the DoE: The first one is mandated by the Constitution, while the second one is prohibited by it. I dont know how I could have gotten confused Jake. Obviously Google translate wasnt up to the task. That being said, you are not taking me to task about the DoD being a bloated bureaucracy, and ANY candidate who claims to be for eliminating the deficit and then turns around and proposes an additional 2 Trillion for the DoD is unfit to be President based solely on his math abilities. BTW- An additional 2 Trillion that the DoD has no plans for using.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Oct 8, 2012 8:34:13 GMT -6
From Wikipedia:
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Oct 8, 2012 8:51:58 GMT -6
Gordon, you forgot the crucial difference between the DoD and the DoE: The first one is mandated by the Constitution, while the second one is prohibited by it. I dont know how I could have gotten confused Jake. Obviously Google translate wasnt up to the task. That being said, you are not taking me to task about the DoD being a bloated bureaucracy, and ANY candidate who claims to be for eliminating the deficit and then turns around and proposes an additional 2 Trillion for the DoD is unfit to be President based solely on his math abilities. BTW- An additional 2 Trillion that the DoD has no plans for using. If you were to read up on this you would know that Romney is not proposing an increase over the current level of spending by $2trillion. He is proposing to reverse the defense spending cuts proposed by Obama's budget in the future, in addition to the automatic cut required on January 1st should we all fall off that fiscal cliff because we STILL do not have an approved budget by Congress....since 2009. This is a big fat FAIL by this adminstration.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Oct 8, 2012 9:00:34 GMT -6
Since 'some' people prefer to believe Obama campaign blather vs reading what Romney's position is. I have copied this from Romney's website that explains what his positions really are.
Show me where Romney said he was going to add $2trillion to the DoD budget....I can't find it. I only find it in claims by Obama's campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 8, 2012 10:40:56 GMT -6
No one is arguing that fact Anita.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 8, 2012 10:47:14 GMT -6
Regarding the $2 Trillion Anita. I am getting my facts from THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE not the Obama campaign. READ THE ARTICLE, one of the most conservative organizations in the country is calling it for what it is, AND THEY ARE ARGUING AGAINST IT.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Oct 8, 2012 12:46:50 GMT -6
Regarding the $2 Trillion Anita. I am getting my facts from THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE not the Obama campaign. READ THE ARTICLE, one of the most conservative organizations in the country is calling it for what it is, AND THEY ARE ARGUING AGAINST IT. Sorry but nowhere does this say that Mitt promises to cut the $2trillion. As I pointed out from Mitt's website, he plans to reverse the cutbacks [planned by Obama and the January 1st deal. This is what your article said... This is not Mitt's estimate. He has never said this amount. BTW, what is Obama's plan to reduce the debt? We know raising the taxes on the top 1% can't even pay the interest on the national debt let alone reduce it. typo edit
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 8, 2012 13:40:48 GMT -6
So you are saying that repealing a cut isnt increased spending?
That sounds strangely the opposite of "allowing a tax cut to expire is a tax increase"
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 8, 2012 13:47:28 GMT -6
Regardless, if his goal is to close the deficit, increasing the spending (or repealing a cut, if you must insist), goes against the stated goal. And even you cannot argue that the DoD is as bloated a bureaucracy as any you can name.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Oct 8, 2012 14:18:33 GMT -6
So you are saying that repealing a cut isnt increased spending? That sounds strangely the opposite of "allowing a tax cut to expire is a tax increase" Repealing a tax cut is keeping it at the same level, not increasing it. Of course I see your point as a matter of semantics. Even if I would agree that it is an increase it's one that was recommend by Secretary Gates in 2010. Romney agrees that their is bloat and waste in the DoD budget. I will refresh your memory of what Romney plans. As we pull our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere we need a mighty big stick here. Pumping up our tools is of great importance. We need more ships, more drones, planes, armor and other heavy tools to wave at our enemies....not our current let me kiss your ass approach. Now, what is Obama's plan again for our defense? Bow, scrape, apologize and kiss-ass?
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Oct 8, 2012 15:19:29 GMT -6
Regardless, if his goal is to close the deficit, increasing the spending (or repealing a cut, if you must insist), goes against the stated goal. And even you cannot argue that the DoD is as bloated a bureaucracy as any you can name. Also remember cuts to the DoD budget are not just the automatic ones that 'could' occur January 1, but additional cuts pushed by Obama.
|
|