Debate, lets actually discuss content

[Necronic]

Since the other thread isn't about the content of the debate I thought it was appropriate to have a seperate thread where we could do that.

For me the biggest problem was that up until now Romney has always focused on the ends, and never outlined the means. This debate was his last chance to do so. And yet again, he only talked about what he's going to do, not how he's going to do it. Apparently he's going to cut taxes, increase funding to medicaire, and balance the budget.

The only thing he really said about how he would do it was "It will be a bi-partisan agenda". Infact he used this as a dodge to actually outline any details of his plans. Because he has no interest in steam-rolling the views of the other members of the government he sees no reason to have a "Big Plan".

My mistake, I could have sworn you were runnign for President. Not a committee chair. There is simply no way I will elect someone who's idea of leadership is letting everyone else come up with the ideas. Because if that was the case we don't need a president, we just need a forum moderetor.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

this thread should have zero replies because there was no content to that debate

 

[Necronic]

So I'll assume you're a Lyndon LaRouche supporter.

 

[GasBandit]

Gary Johnson 2012.

 

[strawman]

If a third party wants to eat at the same table, they're going to have to spend as much money as the other parties on campaigning to bring the public on board with their ideas. I think the american public would love to have multiple choices, but debate or no, they won't learn about the other options unless they campaign as hard.

Johnson probably won't even have a good showing in his home state, nevermind anywhere else.

 

[GasBandit]

If a third party wants to eat at the same table, they're going to have to spend as much money as the other parties on campaigning to bring the public on board with their ideas. I think the american public would love to have multiple choices, but debate or no, they won't learn about the other options unless they campaign as hard.

Johnson probably won't even have a good showing in his home state, nevermind anywhere else.

Yeah, it's the usual 3rd party catch 22. You won't win votes unless you campaign hard, you can't campaign hard without spending lots of money, you can't spend lots of money without raising lots of money, and you can't raise lots of money unless you've shown you can win lots of votes.

But as always, I wonder if the story might not be very different if we had instant runoff elections instead of primaries. List the candidates in order of your preference. That way, you can vote for a 3rd party candidate and not "throw your vote away" if he gets eliminated in the runoff... you'll automatically vote for your demopublican of choice if your higher choice(s) fail.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Jill Stein actually or maybe the Socialist Party guy (name escapes me)

 

[Covar]

If a third party wants to eat at the same table, they're going to have to spend as much money as the other parties on campaigning to bring the public on board with their ideas. I think the american public would love to have multiple choices, but debate or no, they won't learn about the other options unless they campaign as hard.

Johnson probably won't even have a good showing in his home state, nevermind anywhere else.

Reminds me of when Big Ten schools claim that Boise St doesn't deserve a BCS consideration because they don't play any good schools, like those in the Big 10. Of course they don't mention that they set the schedules and refuse to play a school like Boise St, because it against their interests. Third Party politics reminds me of that. Also Fuck College Football.

 

[Zappit]

Romney hits on plans and principles,the details of which are super-duper secret to everybody but him, and Obama hit him on the super secret details that haven't really been discussed at all by Romney.

Oh, and fuck Big Bird, apparently. Sesame Street is a welfare neighborhood.

This is a thing that happened between the two men battling to lead us.

 

[GasBandit]

Because we all know nobody would EVER figure out a revenue stream that could support a megapopular children's program like Sesame Street other than government subsidy.

 

[strawman]

Because we all know nobody would EVER figure out a revenue stream that could support a megapopular children's program like Sesame Street other than government subsidy.

Didn't we just talk about this in the honey boo boo thread?

Do you think that a privately owned and operated tv network could stick to its principles for long and still turn a profit?

Look at scifi, tlc, amc, discovery, etc. entropy rules where entertainment dollars are required for funding.

I think the govt has a role to play in funding some art and entertainment. Not much, but a little tiny bit. While I think Romney would be good for us in other ways, I believe he's going too far in some ways.

Keep in mind that the govt isn't funding PBS. PBS is pulling on some funds the govt has made available. If that we're actually a profitable thing to do, we'd see competition for those dollars. govt funding does one thing, and one thing only for PBS: it provides just enough incentive to avoid commercial dollars that would warp their programming.

 

[GasBandit]

I don't think I partook in the honey boo boo thread.

At any rate, I don't oppose public broadcasting funding on a budgetary basis, I oppose it as a matter of principle. As for funding the arts, there's all kinds of banal shit that has been created because of the inanity that is the National Endowment for the Arts.

As for individual channels turning awful, I think that's because we're on the cusp of the next paradigm shift in content delivery - people want specific content, not specific channels, and the technology is there to deliver it to them. The future of visual entertainment, I believe, is going to be live delivery of content on demand, or perhaps direct subscription to a given show. It's the next logical step after DVRs, Netflix, Hulu and Bittorrent.[DOUBLEPOST=1349389238][/DOUBLEPOST]Basically, what I'm saying is they could sell episodes of Sesame street on itunes for 50 cents an episode and rake in more money than God, without compromising their ideals or vision.

 

[Zappit]

I really, really don't agree with that one, Gas. Patronage has been a part of the art world for centuries, so the Endowment helps keep really experimental art out there. There has been some impressive work, contributions to our very culture, produced through that program.

As for that paradigm shift, seriously? The notion that programming would move completely into such a format seems just a tad farfetched. There will still be a place for channel surfing. It's the method that helps generate interest in the properties that people seek on the Internet in the first place. How many properties would never get any real shot on a system like that. DVR has a great future, as we prefer to see these things on our own terms, but Sesame Street would not sell like gangbusters at that price, because you limit the content delivery that way, particularly to people who aren't so tech savvy or don't have an Apple product. That turns entertainment into a playground for the more affluent. Selling episodes supplements he revenue a show produces. Relying on it will kill it.

 

[GasBandit]

I really, really don't agree with that one, Gas. Patronage has been a part of the art world for centuries, so the Endowment helps keep really experimental art out there. There has been some impressive work, contributions to our very culture, produced through that program.

As for that paradigm shift, seriously? The notion that programming would move completely into such a format seems just a tad farfetched. There will still be a place for channel surfing. It's the method that helps generate interest in the properties that people seek on the Internet in the first place. How many properties would never get any real shot on a system like that. DVR has a great future, as we prefer to see these things on our own terms, but Sesame Street would not sell like gangbusters at that price, because you limit the content delivery that way, particularly to people who aren't so tech savvy or don't have an Apple product. That turns entertainment into a playground for the more affluent. Selling episodes supplements he revenue a show produces. Relying on it will kill it.

I'm sure many a record publisher or radio broadcasting owner once thought the same about itunes and personal media devices. The former are only clinging to life through litigating breath back into their business model, and the latter are atrophying away more every year (believe me, I'm on the front lines of that one).

Most TVs sold these days (and gaming consoles for that matter) already have netflix built into it, some even have hulu already. Western Digital sells a tiny box called WD Live that incorporates all that, plus youtube and a number of other services along with the ability to play back just about any contemporary video file for under $100.

 

[strawman]

Most TVs sold these days (and gaming consoles for that matter) already have netflix built into it

I'm pretty sure that the majority of TVs being sold in the US right now are still regular TVs. Internet TV still have a $100-200 premium over their counterparts, and there are still more regular TVs than smart TVs available for sale in any given shop.

It's a rare blueray player that doesn't include netflix and hulu these days, but there are a lot of signs pointing to bluray failure to penetrate the market enough, due to online video and upconverting DVD players.

 

[Azurephoenix]

It's a rare blueray player that doesn't include netflix and hulu these days, but there are a lot of signs pointing to bluray failure to penetrate the market enough, due to online video and upconverting DVD players.

AKA people don't give two shits about the quality of their video/audio... kind of like low quality MP3's.

Makes me sad.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Also people have sunk a huge amount of money into their DVD collections, and with upconverting players they can delay the purchase for a while. Then there is issue with Blue Ray players not being affordable until just last year.

 

[Azurephoenix]

Also people have sunk a huge amount of money into their DVD collections, and with upconverting players they can delay the purchase for a while. Then there is issue with Blue Ray players not being affordable until just last year.

I can definitely appreciate that (I had a pretty extensive DVD collection). It's just that once I set up a dedicated home theatre in my basement with a 60 inch high definition TV and a pretty good surround sound setup, your standard 480p compressed to hell DVD footage with it's stereo sound just wasn't cutting it anymore .

 

[Bowielee]

Quite frankly, the vast majority of people aren't nearly as hooked into HD stuff as the average geek is. They just want the cheapest TV they can get.

Sure, you or I may insist on top of the line electronics, but that certainly isn't the case for most people.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Man, this is a great derail...

 

[Bowielee]

It wouldn't be Halforums if threads didn't derail within the first few pages.

Unless, of course, the thread is fluff to begin with.

 

[Azurephoenix]

Sure, you or I may insist on top of the line electronics, but that certainly isn't the case for most people.

I can't even rent Blu Rays around here anymore as all the rental places are gone. There also isn't any digital delivery of HD content up here (proper HD content, I don't count 720p with stereo sound as "HD"). The silver lining is that for the cost of two movie tickets I can usually buy the Blu Ray when it is released. That's what I've been doing for a while now and have just been skipping going to the theatre entirely.

(wow... I didn't even realize how badly I've been derailing this thread... sorry guys)

 

[strawman]

OBAMA'S DOMESTIC ECONOMIC POLICIES HAVE KILLED BLURAY.

DVD - NOT THE MEDIA WE WANT, BUT THE MEDIA WE DESERVE.

HONEY BOO BOO - BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, AND OF THE PEOPLE.

 

[GasBandit]

Also take merchandising into account.. I had forgotten sesame street toys and other kids products are probably making hundreds of millions a year. Why do they need a federal subsidy again?

 

[Bowielee]

Yes, because Sesame Street is the only thing on PBS...

 

[Covar]

Because otherwise the Children's Television Workshop would have no choice but to retool the programming into a reality program about muppets training preschoolers for pageants obviously. After all without government programming that is what every television program has to be retooled into because of the gobs and gobs of money gained by the 83% of American's in the Honey Boo Boo demographic.[DOUBLEPOST=1349455864][/DOUBLEPOST]

Yes, because Sesame Street is the only thing on PBS...

Quick he's pointing out the flaws in the argument as originally presented! Change the premise!

 

[Necronic]

Also take merchandising into account.. I had forgotten sesame street toys and other kids products are probably making hundreds of millions a year. Why do they need a federal subsidy again?

To be honest I'm not convinced they do. Currently PBS only gets 7% of its funding from the federal subsidy. The entire Corporation for Public Broadcasting allowance from the federal govt is only 450 million. A pittance really, when you consider that Oil subsidies are 2.8 billion.

There are also studies out there that show that the CPB funding results in about 21k employees and 1 bil in revenue. So you have a system that recieves negligible federal funding, provides services that are massively higher than the funding, and returns a solid amount of revenue.

The main point, however, is that it's a distraction and a non-issue. We have a 1 trillion dollar budget deficit. The CPB makes up less that 1 half of one percent of that deficit. And yet it's now taking up 50% of our conversation on the economy.

 

[GasBandit]

Yes, because Sesame Street is the only thing on PBS...

Well, surely sesame street can share it's money with nova, right? I mean, that's what the end goal is here, right? Somebody getting money somebody else earned?

 

[strawman]

Yeah, I think it's a mistake for Romney to even address it. "PBS is only costing one dollar per American per year. However that's still 450 million that could be used for schools, roads, and Medicare. We should make sure that we are truly correctly prioritizing even our small expenditures. It only takes a few hundred such small expenditures to add up. PBS is simply one public example of federal government costs that we need to scrutinize."

 

[Gilgamesh]

-PBS should totally get off the governement dollar and charge for it's programming, that way only those with solid incomes can get the education it provides. It's not enough they get private schools and better technology to learn with, they should have one of the few things the poorer communities rely on for side-teaching-

Is that really your stance? Unreal.

 

[Covar]

As stated above 93% of PBS funding comes from private donations and other sources, So you're right without the government only the Rich would have access to Educational TV.

 

[strawman]

wow, the amount of fail in this thread is amazing.

Are you sure you're in the right forum? You seem to have us confused with a better forum.

Good point on the fact that the children's programming on PBS is possibly critical to the low income community.

 

[Gilgamesh]

I removed that line, I felt it was inappropriate. Just got a little shook up by the premise. Myself growing up low end middle class learned alot from great PBS shows. My children, when we first started out high end low class learned alot from great PBS shows.

To think that someone would say those shows would be left to special interests/producers/executives? Just makes me cringe.

 

[strawman]

As stated above 93% of PBS funding comes from private donations and other sources, So you're right without the government only the Rich would have access to Educational TV.

My understanding is that the CPB which produces the programming doesn't actually receive federal funds directly. They sell shows to Tv stations that receive the funding. So the question is, will the TV stations go away without federal funding, or will the CPB change its production if the stations no longer have federal funding?

Can non PBS stations and networks buy episodes of Sesame Street? Could we see Sesame Street and other CPB shows on NBC, ABC, etc?

 

[Gilgamesh]

I'll all for non-PBS stations giving money to be able to show episodes of Sesame Street on major networks, however as was stated, that's not the only show on PBS that's been great over the years. Also, I'd only be for the purchasing of episodes to air and not the program as has been stated before, we've seen what's happened to things that are taken over by executives (TLC Channel, History etc).