Jump to content

Romney's Big Bird Comment During Debate Sets Social Media On Fire


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Big Bird is Richer Than Mitt Romney

 

http://www.breitbart...her-Than-Romney

 

Does he think Bert & Ernie should be allowed to marry?

Has he ever tied Snuffleufflegus to the roof of his car?

Is he insensitive towards Oscar the Grouch?

Should the Government regulate Cookie Monster's unhealthy diet?

What are his thoughts on Elmo's tickle fetish?

 

If elected, would he appoint The Count as Secretary of the Treasury?

Edited by /dev/null
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitt Romney really told the moderator he was going to fire him. And then said he'd fire Big Bird. LOL

 

By the way, PBS makes up .0012% of the federal budget.

but he wants an added $2 trillion for the military to "defend" against irans imaginary nuclear bomb program ... lol

Edited by Joe_the_6_pack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Does he think Bert & Ernie should be allowed to marry?

Has he ever tied Snuffleufflegus to the roof of his car?

Is he insensitive towards Oscar the Grouch?

Should the Government regulate Cookie Monster's unhealthy diet?

What are his thoughts on Elmo's tickle fetish?

 

If elected, would he appoint The Count as Secretary of the Treasury?

 

"Snuffelupagus."

 

Geez, you people are morons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really weak!

 

What problem do you have with PBS anyways?

 

 

 

The second point is that Mitt Romney copped out and named PBS on something to cut. He didn't give any serious CUTS. It doesn't surprise me, but it's stupid to give PBS as an example of something you cut. Especially when it has ZERO effect on the budget.

 

The US spends roughly a half a billion dollars on NPR, PBS and other public and radio prorgramming. If you honestly believe that spending 500 million dollars is nothing, than you're an idiot. 500 million here and 500 million there soon adds up to a balanced budget.

 

Using 0.0012 is a copout because that is just PBS direct funding, whereas the whole CPD (Corp for Public Broadcasting) needs to be cut.

 

I mean even National Science Foundation should be private funding only. But they requested 7.6 billion and got 8 billion. Why would you give someone more than they request. We won't even talk about what they need.

 

Labor also only asked for 13.7 but got 14.

 

SBA asked for 1.2 and got 1.4 billion.

 

Army Corps of Engineers asked for 7.9 and got 9.3.

 

Agriculture asked for 27.6 and got 28.8.

 

Justice 24.1 and got 28.8.

 

DHS 46.3 and got 58.8.

 

Education 78.9 got 79.1.

 

 

 

That is over 20 billion more allocated than requested. This administration and government is out of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

http://www.quora.com...eral-government

 

We can't have our pre K children learn at home now can we.

 

 

And yes it's because Bert & Ernie are gay. Can't have that.

 

Myth might as well place a ban on all of the sexual images in disney cartoons while he's at it.

 

Or maybe he directs a change to the Indian on the box of LOL butter.

 

If you folded the Land o lakes butter box in a certain way you can "see" her :censored:

Edited by BillsFan-4-Ever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the most absurd statement EVER made in my brief history in PPP.

You don't know your history. Truth is absurd...to the ignorant.

 

Now, you can go into all the histrionics you want.

 

But, I am telling you: you don't know your history. Think about that for a second.

 

Yeah...I do have it. Yeah...I will make you look like a fool with it. Yeah...it will be funny.

 

 

Go ahead and call me. I've paid for whole weekends in AC off of clowns like you.

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But damn, that post is dumb. It shows a complete lack of understanding of not only history, but reality.

 

Why was that post historically wrong?

 

You may have philosophical differences with Reaganism, but it's fairly conclusive that the focus on the DoD during his administration speeded up the Soviet bankruptcy and cemented US military dominance in the world.

 

Strikes me as odd that you would pick that post to think it's the worst on PPP. Maybe you're channeling your inner Putin who thinks that the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was that post historically wrong?

 

You may have philosophical differences with Reaganism, but it's fairly conclusive that the focus on the DoD during his administration speeded up the Soviet bankruptcy and cemented US military dominance in the world.

 

Strikes me as odd that you would pick that post to think it's the worst on PPP. Maybe you're channeling your inner Putin who thinks that the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.

What's wrong with OC's statement is implication that Reagan cared about waste in military spending -- in fact, it was the opposite. Reagan's philosophy was that defense was NOT a budgetary issue. He made this clear in public addresses, speeches and his own papers after he left office. The military was given carte blanche to spend whatever they deemed necessary to keep the United States safe. His strategy to defeat the soviets was to outspend them. And it worked.

 

To imply that there was no waste in Reagan's military budgets is batsh*t crazy. To imply that Reagan ran the military like a business is hilariously inaccurate. It was the exact opposite. Military spending nearly doubled under Reagan with countless scraped weapons programs that wound up being black holes of waste (see Aurora, SDI etc etc). The black budget nearly TRIPLED under Reagan -- and that budget doesn't have congressional oversight, or oversight of any kind, so to imply that Reagan was monitoring it for waste is just a failure in understanding the man's battle plan against the USSR. He knew we could out spend and out produce the Soviets and drive them into insolvency. He drove up military and intelligence spending to force a reaction -- not to be mindful of waste. It was the exact opposite of what OC is saying in that statement.

 

It's revisionist history at best, flat out idiocy at its worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...