|Nikon - 2012-10-09 |
I'm not sure if this "fumble the ball at the very last nanoclick" strategy is going to work out for Obama. I hope it does, because four years of Mittens is not anything I look forward to.
|Bort - 2012-10-09 |
The point of sarcasm, when it's done well, is to force the other person to think through an absurdity to arrive at a conclusion they otherwise would have resisted. So I think this ad works. But somewhere, Jon Stewart is wondering whether he's briefly been rendered redundant.
|cognitivedissonance - 2012-10-09 |
There's an argument that goes something like this: "The amount of public funding PBS and NPR receives from the government is not worth the constant and persistent hassle of Senator Tankerbell bringing up revoking support every time he doesn't get a new piece of pork for his home district, and by simply voluntarily leaving the public funding behind, PBS and NPR would be free to pursue their chosen financing model, which would allow them to be journalistically and creatively free to do whatever they want."
And that's a fine argument, but the point behind PBS and NPR is that we MUST fund them, or wave the white flag entirely. "There's nothing beautiful or human about us, we're all just serfs to the Golden Calf." It's basically the last thing from the Great Society we have left that isn't also making millions for insurance and medical corporations. The twisting of the knife was appointing Lee "God Bless The USA" Greenwood to a six-year term on the National Council of the Arts, "Fuck you, we're gonna be philistines!" they shouted. Now they want us artsy fags to support ourselves with Kickstarter, so they don't have to pretend in any slight fractional way to be anything else but.
this is paying attention to a hang nail while getting shot by an M16
A better argument for keeping NPR/PBS publicly funded is this:
The Learning Channel started out as a free educational channel run by several government agencies, including NASA, in 1972. It was privatized in 1980. PBS shows award-winning educational and informational programming that I'd sit my kid down in front of without fear of them coming away seeing something objectionable.
The Learning Channel shows "Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo."
The free market can't produce PBS or NPR. It created TLC and the History channel. In addition to Honey Boo Boo think about all the people that are going to kill themselves over this 2012 apocalypse thing. That entire thing was a creation of the History Channel. There wasn't a single vanity press published book about it prior to it's appearance on the History Channel. They are the original source.
|Void 71 - 2012-10-09 |
America is circling the drain. Lets make a wacky commercial so the younger people know we're cool.
|TeenerTot - 2012-10-09 |
I'm just sick at the thought of conservative d-bags hijacking Big Bird as some misguided, ill-conceived symbol of their own.
I imagine them going to rallies with Big Bird toys, kinda like some of them did with Curious George in '08.
Suppose they make a point of going to rallies lynching Big Bird: how's that going to make them look? I bet it will make them look absolutely ridiculous, and it will discredit their cause. And that would be good.
I don't think Obama is an 11-dimensional chess master, and frankly I suck at chess so I wouldn't even know; but I know enough to try to think ahead and imagine what the other guy's options will be after I move. I'm betting Obama can do that too.
Obama had a poor showing in the debate the other night, but he did one thing right that he took a lot of grief over: he refused to try to nail Romney on the 47% thing. You see, Romney probably had a prepared response for that, so the smart thing was not to give him the opportunity to present his prepared response. Like I say, I believe Obama knows enough to think ahead.
The American public already knows about the 47% thing, so it's not really worth bringing up. That, or he's saving it for debate #2.
|Jet Bin Fever - 2012-10-09 |
I liked it.
|memedumpster - 2012-10-09 |
A good response ad to this would be "Barack Obama : still murdered three American citizens without legal precedent."
That is if Romney's base didn't wholeheartedly endorse the murder of Americans.
Is killing non-citizens any more acceptable than killing citizens?
I am just as unsettled by killing foreigners as I am about killing the three citizens; the fact that three of them could serve on a US jury doesn't make me prize their lives any more or any less than the other people killed.
The funny thing is it's not the Republicans that are upset about drone strikes. It's mostly Democrats and Independents. I'm not hearing any noise from the House proposing any kind of condemnation or restriction on the President's powers.
As for the drone strikes, I'm not a fan, but I'm even less a fan of every other tactic I can think of for dealing with active terrorists in other countries. Here are the options that come to mind:
a) Trust foreign governments to take care of terrorists for us. (Not like they did with bin Laden, where I guess Pakistan thought we meant "set him up in a comfy estate". Apparently we weren't clear enough.)
b) Don't try to deal with terrorists at all while they're overseas.
d) Full-scale invasion.
e) Carpet bombing.
f) Cruise missiles.
g) Drone attacks.
Of those options, drone attacks stand the best chance of being both surgical and effective. It of course depends upon the intelligence we can obtain, and I don't doubt the administration is overstating both our accuracy and our precision.
I was trolling because this ad is so ridiculous.
I find all human death repugnant, but recognize even most liberals don't give a crap about foreign citizens, so I chose that as a trolling lure.
Republicans love war, death, and especially cold blooded murder kinds of both, so no, they wouldn't complain.
e) Don't train radically violent uneducated people to fight on our side and then abandon them to be cleaned up later by Raytheon, Boeing, and KBR. This is why I hate drones, it's a continuation of coward's militarism, a drone is just cheaper and more predictable to exploit than a poor Muslim with nowhere to run and nothing to lose. Peasants in foreign lands with resources we intend to steal are being replaced by robots.
I meant e) as h) because I am dumb).
|dead_cat - 2012-10-10 |
Goddamit, it's like the Obama campaign took stupid pills.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|