Constitution Revolution: 2012

[Phatscotty]

agree to disagree. The people who are paying the taxes, and not receiving benefits such as food stamps, are the ones who are pissed and have been in the streets the last couple years. Open your eyes

Classic elitist tactic... blame the lower classes. Meanwhile, ignore those folks over there buying multi-million dollar homes, etc.

or, the third choice, concentrate on whether we want to live in a free country or not.

[Baron Von PWN]

Okay, here is a chart of tax dollar that is set aside for education over the last 30 years.



And, here is a chart of the results we get for our ever increasing investment.

(flip the chart upside down) The more money we invest in education (through the fed gov't) the worse results we get. We should stop immediately.

We pay more and more money, and get shittier and shittier results. THIS SYSTEM IS BROKEN, and it's costing us far more than the money we are flushing down the toilet for their education.

EXTRA CREDIT, can anyone figure out how America became #1 in education from 1900-1970, without increasing any education spending?

actually that chart shows the last 80 years. That seems to be a very narrow view of things, unsurprisingly. If state investment in education causes a decrease in quality of education why do other countries which invest in education see better results?

Also any figures like literacy rates for those years? % of people with post secondary education? spending as a % of GDP? you know stuff we can use to qualitatively asses the absolute numbers.

Your chart actually shows a gradually increasing amount of state investment from 1900-1970 when the dollar amounts were adjusted for inflation. So was it through state investment?

[PLAYER57832]

agree to disagree. The people who are paying the taxes, and not receiving benefits such as food stamps, are the ones who are pissed and have been in the streets the last couple years. Open your eyes

Classic elitist tactic... blame the lower classes. Meanwhile, ignore those folks over there buying multi-million dollar homes, etc.

or, the third choice, concentrate on whether we want to live in a free country or not.

LOL... without food on the table, there is no freedom. It is the elite, indeed who pretends it is about something else.

[PLAYER57832]

Cutting Food Stamps?


I'm sorry, but the fastest way to spark civil unrest is to scare the poor with the fear of hunger.
Do they really want to start down this road? It ends eventually with some pretty brutal examples of the worst of crowd mentality.
Food riots in Egypt, Mexico, and other places have ignited over the rocketing price or food staples such as corn and rice in the past. Seriously, what the f*ck are they thinking?????


Johnny Rockets

Besides which, the funds that go into food stamps... and things like preschools, higher education, and other cost-beneficial programs (that is, cutting them will cost us even more in the future) won't give us much. PLUS, those programs are not what got us into this mess. It was irresponsible banking, corporate heads and the wars.

Aside from the wars, do you feel that the government is not to blame for anything else?

Keep claiming I am "blaming the government". It is a common right-wing rhetoric tactic. The truth is I blame the bigwigs, the leaders of the big corporations (not just CEOs by any means, in fact not always CEOs at all). They, in turn use the government and find it mightily convenient to point the working people at those below them, things like food stamps and such as the blame for high taxes.

meanwhile.. the leaders conveniently "forget" to mention how much those subsidies are actually helping their companies (many have even convinced themselves they get no real help) and "forget" to mention many other forms of more direct support. They just keep rolling in the profits and laughing at how stupid the majority are.

[Phatscotty]

Gov. Rick Scott called Monday for overhauling Florida's Medicaid program, curbing its pension system and trimming government services as he detailed a budget proposal he had promised would be full of big cuts.

The plan "makes the hard decisions," Mr. Scott said as he unveiled the $65.9 billion budget for fiscal 2012 before a packed gathering of tea-party groups in the rural town of Eustis, Fla. "But it makes the right decisions for Florida's future."

The 2012 spending plan reflects cuts of $4.6 billion over the fiscal 2011 budget, and Mr. Scott outlined more cuts for fiscal 2013. Ahead of Monday's announcement, the Republican governor discussed slashing $5 billion from the budget, while cutting property and corporate income taxes by about $2 billion.

Now he has laid out how he hopes to achieve those results and fulfill his campaign pledge to create 700,000 private-sector jobs in the next seven years.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 73306.html

[BigBallinStalin]

Cutting Food Stamps?


I'm sorry, but the fastest way to spark civil unrest is to scare the poor with the fear of hunger.
Do they really want to start down this road? It ends eventually with some pretty brutal examples of the worst of crowd mentality.
Food riots in Egypt, Mexico, and other places have ignited over the rocketing price or food staples such as corn and rice in the past. Seriously, what the f*ck are they thinking?????


Johnny Rockets

Besides which, the funds that go into food stamps... and things like preschools, higher education, and other cost-beneficial programs (that is, cutting them will cost us even more in the future) won't give us much. PLUS, those programs are not what got us into this mess. It was irresponsible banking, corporate heads and the wars.

Aside from the wars, do you feel that the government is not to blame for anything else?

Keep claiming I am "blaming the government". It is a common right-wing rhetoric tactic. The truth is I blame the bigwigs, the leaders of the big corporations (not just CEOs by any means, in fact not always CEOs at all). They, in turn use the government and find it mightily convenient to point the working people at those below them, things like food stamps and such as the blame for high taxes.

meanwhile.. the leaders conveniently "forget" to mention how much those subsidies are actually helping their companies (many have even convinced themselves they get no real help) and "forget" to mention many other forms of more direct support. They just keep rolling in the profits and laughing at how stupid the majority are.

You should blame the government because they're ultimately responsible for enacting the subsidies and enforcing them through their monopolized legal system. They're responsible for the Fed, and all of it's f*ck-ups. They're the main reason why the economy has tanked and why it will keep tanking.

The inherent problem with government is that it is susceptible to vested interests.

No matter what, there will be capitalism and corporations for a very long time (and that's good!), but with the government's control over the legal system, there's that incentive for companies to use the government through vested interests to give it more favorable terms and a less competitive environment.

Don't you understand what I've typed? Don't write down a bunch of jibber-jabber without first understanding exactly what I just typed.

[Phatscotty]

What happened to, "they're all just politicians"?

We got rid of a lot of them. We replaced them with a lot of "citizens". They have a chance to hold on to their seat, they risk losing it if they turn into "just another politician". We sent them to congress with MUCH higher expectations.

[Phatscotty]

lmao you're as funny as the idiots who thought (think?) that Obama is the savior of the USA.

Same old shit, different party.

Are you saying Ron Paul, if elected, would cave in to special interests?

I believe Ron Paul would do exactly what he says he's going to do. I base this on his long record of voting exactly how he says he is going to vote.

Have you ever heard of Ron Paul?

[PLAYER57832]

You should blame the government because they're ultimately responsible for enacting the subsidies and enforcing them through their monopolized legal system. They're responsible for the Fed, and all of it's f*ck-ups. They're the main reason why the economy has tanked and why it will keep tanking.

LOL... and who IS this "government?"
To a large extent, lobbyists hired by various power brokers. Votes count, too, but only are effective when people take the time to understand issues, etc. They tend to only do that when things get really, really tough. And then, they are likely to listen to the guy who shouts loudest "a chicken in every pot" or "lower taxes" without worrying too much (or understanding) how that is going to happen (not happen, more like..)

The inherent problem with government is that it is susceptible to vested interests.

And the alternative... to hand the decisions to those very "vested interests" without even the check of votes.

No matter what, there will be capitalism and corporations for a very long time (and that's good!), but with the government's control over the legal system, there's that incentive for companies to use the government through vested interests to give it more favorable terms and a less competitive environment.

Don't you understand what I've typed? Don't write down a bunch of jibber-jabber without first understanding exactly what I just typed.

Understand? Oh please...
You put forward my very argument.

EXCEPT ... you ignore that the real role of government is to set "safety fences". That means having a basic welfare system because overall, its cheaper to pass out food than having a bunch of starving people in the country. (being very, very simplistic, of course). It also means restraining companies from polluting our country, killing us all (big FAIL there), it means establishing rules for safe operations and requiring companies to be reasonably "honest" in dealings ( not to commit outright fraud, cheat)

[Phatscotty]

What do you think about this vid Player? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt-jcS3ItRY

[BigBallinStalin]

You should blame the government because they're ultimately responsible for enacting the subsidies and enforcing them through their monopolized legal system. They're responsible for the Fed, and all of it's f*ck-ups. They're the main reason why the economy has tanked and why it will keep tanking.

LOL... and who IS this "government?"
To a large extent, lobbyists hired by various power brokers. Votes count, too, but only are effective when people take the time to understand issues, etc. They tend to only do that when things get really, really tough. And then, they are likely to listen to the guy who shouts loudest "a chicken in every pot" or "lower taxes" without worrying too much (or understanding) how that is going to happen (not happen, more like..)

And the government let's that happen through the monopoly on the legal system. By government, I'm talking about the state that involuntarily takes your money--you know those guys, right?

The inherent problem with government is that it is susceptible to vested interests.

And the alternative... to hand the decisions to those very "vested interests" without even the check of votes.

That's not the alternative.

No matter what, there will be capitalism and corporations for a very long time (and that's good!), but with the government's control over the legal system, there's that incentive for companies to use the government through vested interests to give it more favorable terms and a less competitive environment.

Don't you understand what I've typed? Don't write down a bunch of jibber-jabber without first understanding exactly what I just typed.

Understand? Oh please...
You put forward my very argument.

EXCEPT ... you ignore that the real role of government is to set "safety fences". That means having a basic welfare system because overall, its cheaper to pass out food than having a bunch of starving people in the country. (being very, very simplistic, of course). It also means restraining companies from polluting our country, killing us all (big FAIL there), it means establishing rules for safe operations and requiring companies to be reasonably "honest" in dealings ( not to commit outright fraud, cheat)

Safety fences? Are you kidding me? Safety fences? Haven't you paid any attention to what else the government does? They give you a little, yet print a ton of money and f*ck up every young American's financial future for what? Wealth redistribution? Shitty expensive health care, low quality and expensive (through taxes) education, and no social security for young people? What safety fence? It's an illusion.

The basic welfare system just incentivizes people to vote for the party that feeds them. Where's the democracy in that? It indirectly buys votes.

Restraining pollution? HA! The EPA is a joke. And it's not really in the government's best interests to restrain industry; they only do so when people demand it of them. And the government doesn't really have to perform well on its promises because it still gets your money in the end. Look at the BP disaster: the government failed to enforce its legislated regulations. It's all a joke!

Protection of fraud and all that is provided from the legal system--not the state; therefore, legal services and laws can still be mandated and enforced without a government (or with a very limited one).

[PLAYER57832]

What do you think about this vid Player? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt-jcS3ItRY

Some nice-sounding rhetoric.

It does a good job of explaining why we should not be handing even more power and money to corporate America, while trying to blame every problem we have now on Obama.. never mind that they were created long before he came into office.

and note.. I don't say that Obama has fixed everything, but there is a big difference between complaining that he has not done enough to fix things and your repeated claims that he is making things worse.

[PLAYER57832]

You should blame the government because they're ultimately responsible for enacting the subsidies and enforcing them through their monopolized legal system. They're responsible for the Fed, and all of it's f*ck-ups. They're the main reason why the economy has tanked and why it will keep tanking.

LOL... and who IS this "government?"
To a large extent, lobbyists hired by various power brokers. Votes count, too, but only are effective when people take the time to understand issues, etc. They tend to only do that when things get really, really tough. And then, they are likely to listen to the guy who shouts loudest "a chicken in every pot" or "lower taxes" without worrying too much (or understanding) how that is going to happen (not happen, more like..)

And the government let's that happen through the monopoly on the legal system. By government, I'm talking about the state that involuntarily takes your money--you know those guys, right?

OH bull... ignore again the actions of the banks, the decisions corporations make to favor profit over anything even close to the good of the nation, the economy as a whole... etc.

NOTE: This does not make those corporations "evil", it makes them private corporations. To claim they can be relied upon to protect or work for the good of the rest of us and that the real enemy here is the government is just ridiculous.

The inherent problem with government is that it is susceptible to vested interests.

And the alternative... to hand the decisions to those very "vested interests" without even the check of votes.

That's not the alternative. OH?? So what other control entity do you see out there. Aliens from space, perhaps? Or.. God?

No matter what, there will be capitalism and corporations for a very long time (and that's good!), but with the government's control over the legal system, there's that incentive for companies to use the government through vested interests to give it more favorable terms and a less competitive environment.

Don't you understand what I've typed? Don't write down a bunch of jibber-jabber without first understanding exactly what I just typed.

Understand? Oh please...
You put forward my very argument.

EXCEPT ... you ignore that the real role of government is to set "safety fences". That means having a basic welfare system because overall, its cheaper to pass out food than having a bunch of starving people in the country. (being very, very simplistic, of course). It also means restraining companies from polluting our country, killing us all (big FAIL there), it means establishing rules for safe operations and requiring companies to be reasonably "honest" in dealings ( not to commit outright fraud, cheat)

Safety fences? Are you kidding me? Safety fences? Haven't you paid any attention to what else the government does? They give you a little, yet print a ton of money and f*ck up every young American's financial future for what? Wealth redistribution? Shitty expensive health care, low quality and expensive (through taxes) education, and no social security for young people? What safety fence? It's an illusion.

LOL
Money is illusion.

The "fences", the REAL reason that corporate America hates government and Obama so much is they impose safety and environmental restrictions as well as limits on how they can obtain profit ... never mind that most of those "limits" serve to protect you and I from abuse by the bigwigs... go ahead and just claim that any limit is bad.

The basic welfare system just incentivizes people to vote for the party that feeds them. Where's the democracy in that? It indirectly buys votes.

LOL
Most of those people on welfare don't vote. And, for every penny spent on food, you can find over $1000 given directly and indirectly to corporations. Poor people are not the ones buying advertising, influencing minds through massive campaigns of disinformation. In fact, many of those subsidies truly ARE subsidies to the corporations... allowing Walmart to hire people who get less than a living wage, something they only concede to do because they can rely upon subsidies (or spouses) to provide additional support.

Nice try at further disinformation.

Restraining pollution? HA! The EPA is a joke.

True, they have been effectively gutted due to the power of corporate influence.

And it's not really in the government's best interests to restrain industry; they only do so when people demand it of them. And the government doesn't really have to perform well on its promises because it still gets your money in the end. Look at the BP disaster: the government failed to enforce its legislated regulations. It's all a joke!

You act as if the government has a mind of its own. The government is nothing but a responsive entity. It responds to the strongest group, mostly, but is ultimately restrained by votes.

Protection of fraud and all that is provided from the legal system--not the state; therefore, legal services and laws can still be mandated and enforced without a government (or with a very limited one).

LOL... the legal system IS part of the government.. or didn't you learn about how our three branches are supposed to check each other?

Of course, of late, the right has effectively diverted so much attention to issues like fighting abortion and such, the corporations were able to neatly insert their REAL aims.. judges who would consistantly rule to give more power to corporations as opposed to individuals. And, the right has effectively convinced people that none of that matters as long as they can have a few judges making an issue of opposing abortion. Never mind that poor economic conditions will do more to INCREASE abortions than any rules will do to prohibit them.

[PLAYER57832]

agree to disagree. The people who are paying the taxes, and not receiving benefits such as food stamps, are the ones who are pissed and have been in the streets the last couple years. Open your eyes

Classic elitist tactic... blame the lower classes. Meanwhile, ignore those folks over there buying multi-million dollar homes, etc.

or, the third choice, concentrate on whether we want to live in a free country or not.

Not a third choice at all. Freedom is an illusion without food on your table.

[BigBallinStalin]

You should blame the government because they're ultimately responsible for enacting the subsidies and enforcing them through their monopolized legal system. They're responsible for the Fed, and all of it's f*ck-ups. They're the main reason why the economy has tanked and why it will keep tanking.

LOL... and who IS this "government?"
To a large extent, lobbyists hired by various power brokers. Votes count, too, but only are effective when people take the time to understand issues, etc. They tend to only do that when things get really, really tough. And then, they are likely to listen to the guy who shouts loudest "a chicken in every pot" or "lower taxes" without worrying too much (or understanding) how that is going to happen (not happen, more like..)

And the government let's that happen through the monopoly on the legal system. By government, I'm talking about the state that involuntarily takes your money--you know those guys, right?

OH bull... ignore again the actions of the banks, the decisions corporations make to favor profit over anything even close to the good of the nation, the economy as a whole... etc.

NOTE: This does not make those corporations "evil", it makes them private corporations. To claim they can be relied upon to protect or work for the good of the rest of us and that the real enemy here is the government is just ridiculous.

The inherent problem with government is that it is susceptible to vested interests.

And the alternative... to hand the decisions to those very "vested interests" without even the check of votes.

That's not the alternative. OH?? So what other control entity do you see out there. Aliens from space, perhaps? Or.. God?

... ?

Where's the connect between my statement of vested interests manipulating government decisions? You say, "OH THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS... IS... THE VESTED INTERESTS WILL BE IN CONTROL--OR ALIENS!! LOL OLOL TOTLTOL"


You've no understanding in how legal systems work, do you? That's why you can't see what I'm trying to tell you in the first series of responses.

No matter what, there will be capitalism and corporations for a very long time (and that's good!), but with the government's control over the legal system, there's that incentive for companies to use the government through vested interests to give it more favorable terms and a less competitive environment.

Don't you understand what I've typed? Don't write down a bunch of jibber-jabber without first understanding exactly what I just typed.

Understand? Oh please...
You put forward my very argument.

EXCEPT ... you ignore that the real role of government is to set "safety fences". That means having a basic welfare system because overall, its cheaper to pass out food than having a bunch of starving people in the country. (being very, very simplistic, of course). It also means restraining companies from polluting our country, killing us all (big FAIL there), it means establishing rules for safe operations and requiring companies to be reasonably "honest" in dealings ( not to commit outright fraud, cheat)

Safety fences? Are you kidding me? Safety fences? Haven't you paid any attention to what else the government does? They give you a little, yet print a ton of money and f*ck up every young American's financial future for what? Wealth redistribution? Shitty expensive health care, low quality and expensive (through taxes) education, and no social security for young people? What safety fence? It's an illusion.

LOL
Money is illusion.

The "fences", the REAL reason that corporate America hates government and Obama so much is they impose safety and environmental restrictions as well as limits on how they can obtain profit ... never mind that most of those "limits" serve to protect you and I from abuse by the bigwigs... go ahead and just claim that any limit is bad.

Right.. money can be considered an "illusion," except people decide to still use it--thus making it "real." But, that has nothing to do with what I was saying. Once again, you don't read, and if you do read, you fail to comprehend. Your brain is hard-wired into placing the sole (or main) blame on corporations once again. You've ignored all possible reasons which I stated. Therefore, you're being a bigot.

The basic welfare system just incentivizes people to vote for the party that feeds them. Where's the democracy in that? It indirectly buys votes.

LOL
Most of those people on welfare don't vote. And, for every penny spent on food, you can find over $1000 given directly and indirectly to corporations. Poor people are not the ones buying advertising, influencing minds through massive campaigns of disinformation. In fact, many of those subsidies truly ARE subsidies to the corporations... allowing Walmart to hire people who get less than a living wage, something they only concede to do because they can rely upon subsidies (or spouses) to provide additional support.

Nice try at further disinformation.

Right, most people on welfare didn't vote for Obama, but that's not my argument either. Where do you come up with this? Here I'm saying how votes are indirectly bought, and you ignore that and go on about something else. Just focus on what I was talking about.

And it's not really in the government's best interests to restrain industry; they only do so when people demand it of them. And the government doesn't really have to perform well on its promises because it still gets your money in the end. Look at the BP disaster: the government failed to enforce its legislated regulations. It's all a joke!

You act as if the government has a mind of its own. The government is nothing but a responsive entity. It responds to the strongest group, mostly, but is ultimately restrained by votes.

I never said it has a mind of its own. I'm describing how an organization works. It seems you can't understand such a concept, so why bother?

Protection of fraud and all that is provided from the legal system--not the state; therefore, legal services and laws can still be mandated and enforced without a government (or with a very limited one).

LOL... the legal system IS part of the government.. or didn't you learn about how our three branches are supposed to check each other?

Of course, of late, the right has effectively diverted so much attention to issues like fighting abortion and such, the corporations were able to neatly insert their REAL aims.. judges who would consistantly rule to give more power to corporations as opposed to individuals. And, the right has effectively convinced people that none of that matters as long as they can have a few judges making an issue of opposing abortion. Never mind that poor economic conditions will do more to INCREASE abortions than any rules will do to prohibit them.

The legal system doesn't have to be part of the government. Don't you understand anything when I type "the legal system is monopolized by the government?"

lol, I love you conclude with something about abortion. We weren't even talking about abortion and here you bring it up. This is just insane.

Just keep yelling and screaming about issues you don't understand; it seems to be very effective for your own little world.

[Woodruff]

Critics lashed out Wednesday at a proposal by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul to slash numerous federal programs, including food stamps, to save $500 billion in a single year.

"Some of the elements of the plan, which would remove the safety net that poor and vulnerable people need, we would find morally objectionable," said the Rev. Patrick Delahanty, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Kentucky.

Paul introduced legislation in the Senate on Tuesday that would slash $42 billion from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's food stamp program -- a 30 percent reduction from the current funding level. It also would eliminate numerous other programs, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Paul said the proposal, which also would cut $16 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, would roll back federal spending to 2008 levels and eliminate what he considers the most wasteful programs.

The Kentucky Republican said he hopes his proposal will spark a dialogue within the Senate about how to repair the nation's economy.

Public Broadcasting is as important to our children's development as a whole as almost anything else, outside of their family environment and school:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/0 ... n-Congress

[tzor]

Public Broadcasting is as important to our children's development as a whole as almost anything else, outside of their family environment and school:

You mean "our children's brainwashing." The world has changed radically since the time of President Nixon. Back then most people had access to less than a dozen channels. The notion of educational programming at children in the commerical TV environment was non existant. The only other learning avenue to children at the time was the school system and that was not available to those younger than school age.

Public Brodcasting was important back then. In addition to the education, you also had cooking shows, painting shows, and coverage of local politics. (I strongly doubt that New York State's Capitol would have ever been covered had it not been for "Inside Albany.") Back then you had CONSERVATIVES on Public Broadcasting, including the great William F. Buckley Jr.

But that was then. Mr. Buckley is dead. Mr. Rodgers is dead. Count Count is dead.

And while Big Bird doesn't sell corn flakes, he does pimp himself. Seasmie Street metchandise is huge. Seasmie Street itself is huge, Big Bird's a one-percenter: Inside Sesame Street's tax return

The 2011 IRS 990 form for Sesame Workshop (formerly the Children's Television Workshop), the producers of Sesame Street, revealed that they received $7,968,918 in government grants last year. That sounds like a hefty amount, but the 990 also revealed that Sesame Workshop received $44,984,003 in royalties last year, which includes sales of Sesame Street brand merchandise like "Tickle Me Elmo" dolls. That means Big Bird made five times in merchandise sales than what he received in government grants.

An even closer look at Sesame Workshop's finances shows the government funding Romney wants to cut is only a small part of their budget and may not be necessary at all. In 2011, Sesame Workshop received $31,555,192 in grants and donations last year apart from the U.S. government. They also raised over $2 million in additional funds from various fundraising events. In all, Sesame Workshop raised almost $34 million in private funds for Sesame Street, aside from government grants.

One of these things ($8M, $45M, $31M) is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong.

In addition, Sesame Workshop brought in almost $30 million in revenue from content distribution and media production. In total, Sesame Workshop brought in over $122 million in revenue, not including government grants.

So cry me a river PBS, but isn't the real need for all this money because the workers in Seasme Workshop are actually well paid?

However, salaries still make up a large part of their budget. In 2011, they paid out over $54 million in salaries, a high percentage of their budget for a non-profit.

[Nobunaga]

... Personally, I prefer Dinosaur Train to Sesame Street.

[Phatscotty]

It's like the reality that Sesame Street/PBS can sustain itself has never even been considered.

[Woodruff]

Public Broadcasting is as important to our children's development as a whole as almost anything else, outside of their family environment and school:

You mean "our children's brainwashing."

Seriously? What is it that shows like Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, The Electric Company and Sesame Street teach that you object so fervently to?

[tzor]

Just curious...are there any gay character on Sesame Street?

Apparetnly, they insist that since their characters are PUPPETS, they are all asexual.

[tzor]

Seriously? What is it that shows like Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, The Electric Company and Sesame Street teach that you object so fervently to?

Mr. Roger is dead.

They still have Electric Company? Fascinating ... must research ...

And now back to Sesame Street.

Is Sesame Street Spreading Left-Wing Propaganda? Exec Admits, Yes
Sesame Street Spreads Secret Political Messages, Insiders Admit

P.S. The New Electric Company only started in 2009. so it's only three years old. Basic reviews doesn't sound like you can comapre it to MRN. Sorry but I don't think you can.

Metacritic on the New Electric Company

[GreecePwns]

Why is an issue being made over .0012% of the federal budget again?

[Woodruff]

Why is an issue being made over .0012% of the federal budget again?

Because SOROS!!!! and LIBERALS!!!!

[Woodruff]

Seriously? What is it that shows like Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, The Electric Company and Sesame Street teach that you object so fervently to?

Mr. Roger is dead.

Irrelevant, as his show still is on reruns, at least on PBS here in Nebraska.

They still have Electric Company? Fascinating ... must research ...

And now back to Sesame Street.

Is Sesame Street Spreading Left-Wing Propaganda? Exec Admits, Yes
Sesame Street Spreads Secret Political Messages, Insiders Admit

P.S. The New Electric Company only started in 2009. so it's only three years old. Basic reviews doesn't sound like you can comapre it to MRN. Sorry but I don't think you can.

Metacritic on the New Electric Company

You didn't answer my question. Please be specific. Thanks.