I see. Thanks for the information. Cutting PBS seems to be a pretty arbitrary thing to support then.
Did he bring up how everyone thought Solyndra was a safe investment?Oh look---he just brought up Solyndra. Of course he ignores the other 30+ companies that are doing fine.
Something I've never liked about these debates. I'm not a fan of Obama, but you do not tell the most powerful man in the world when he is done speaking. Heck, they should both be allowed to speak for as long as they want. I want to hear everything they have to say, not just what they can cram into 2 minutes.
HAHAHAHA. Sure. He definitely did. Definitely didn't make it seem like Solyndra was the only recipient of the 90 BILLION DOLLARS (Which I have no idea if it is even accurate, but Romney repeated it literally like 4 times in a minute) that he gave to the green energy industry.
Oh look, Romney finally brought up the 716 billion dollars taken out of Medicare lie.
There's a position that exists (which I don't agree with) that simply says that investing in private businesses is not the government's place. If that were Romney's position, he might be able to articulate some reasonable point on Solyndra. With his position that investing in energy is a good thing, there's simply not plausible way to say, "ha, Solyndra!".
I'm not seeing the downside to this. Incidentally, this is possibly the greatest blog post ever -
http://faceintheblue.wordpress.com/2...d-win-and-why/
I wish Obama would just call Romney a fucking liar.
There he goes again stating the 716 billion dollar medicare lie.
Poor Obama, he's getting crushed tonight. Looks like the complete blathering idiot he really is.
I don't think there's anyway to show systemic evidence of it. It's an opinion. Read a bunch of their analyses and see if you agree or not. I'm entirely willing to accept that not everyone will agree. I think it's easy to find anecdotes of them being faux bipartisan, but that doesn't really prove much of anything.
To be clear, I think they provide a fantastic and valuable service. I just don't think using their ratings as a standalone way to evaluate how often a candidate tells the truth works well.