NSR: CHICAGO Political Thread ***HIGHLY TOXIC - ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK***

You mean when private individuals were funding the greatest explosion in art the world had seen in a millennium or more?

I'll admit I think cutting NEH and NEA funding (along with similar stuff) is dumb. But less because I think they are necessary government programs (the above comment is said mostly in jest, but I do think PBS would do just fine on donations without government funding), and more because they are drops in the bucket.

The problem is that there is no political will to cut any of the most expensive parts of the budget. No amount of cuts to those tiny programs are going to fix the budget issues.

 

The GOP doesn't care about fixing the budget. They just want to stick it to the libtards. That whole fvcking party is just a message board on FreeRepublic.com.

 

I largely agree with the first two sentences. I can't speak to the last one, I've never been there.

At some point the Republicans are going to have to realize their hawkishness is largely incompatible with their small government message.

 

But keep voting right wing until they get it!

 

Such notable private parties as the Catholic Church, various Italian duchies, etc.? Or, more likely, the development of print technology to create an open market, that was in fact independent of the landed gentry and their religious collaborators?

"One solution to this relative stagnation in worth was printmaking, which freed the artists from wealthy patrons and their demands regarding the subject matter and composition of commissioned works".​

 

...and yet

 

Fixed.

Edit: But yes, their hawkishness is entirely incompatible with with supposedly being for limited/small government.

 

I could give you a citation to prove anything just ask our president. http://www.theonion.com/article/meth-actually-not-that-bad-for-you-report-doctors--31319

 

Here you go:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/06/lenin-white-house-steve-bannon
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html.

 

1. In the 16th Century it was not "private individuals", almost all were "royalty", so they WERE the government, who funded the explosion. As usual, you are wrong.
2. It is mostly private individuals in the US, NEA is only $148 million, which is less than $.50 per American citizen per year.
3. They are more vital than the goddamn "Border Wall" (and all cost less).
4. PBS will survive, but will suffer. I suspect PBS in less populous places than Chicago may go away or go commercial.
5. Not only was there no "political will to cut" the most expensive project (the ridiculous, bloated, awful corporate giveaway that is the Department of Defense), but they actually increased that budget by more than the all of the cuts of the 19 agency eliminated combined.
6. The idea of a $1.4 billion giveaway to religious and private grammar/high schools is repulsive. This is more than NEA, NEH and LSC combined. F*ck Betsy DeVos with a rusty, herpes-infected, diseased Ruiz.


7. Again, I am glad that you have no problem with a Trump presidency. You are getting what you want, apparently.

 

I've been mean to Ruiz before but, really?

 

You are right, this is too good for her.
Well, okay. How about this?

F*ck Betsy DeVos with a rusty, herpes-infected, diseased Steve Bannon.

Better?

 

It's what collaborators do.

 

Better is relative, but yes.

 

Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the panel’s top Democrat, also said there is no proof of a wiretap: “We are at the bottom of this: There is nothing at the bottom.”

 

That is "tapp"

 

Trump:

 

And, of course, he blames the Democrats!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lthcare-plan-bill-vote-pulled-obamacare-trump

“If [Democrats] got together with us, and got us a real healthcare bill, I’d be totally OK with that. The losers are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, because they own Obamacare. They 100% own it,” he said.

He is calling the Ryan-Trump "plan" something other than a "real healthcare bill".

Pelosi should immediately (to use Trump's word about when he was going to repeal and replace) introduce and give to Trump, a single-payer, Medicare for All plan. Call John Conyers, he has one drafted already. It was H.R. 676. (Yes, I know the minority party has an almost impossible chance of having something introduced, much less passed).

Give that to Trump, which would be a "real healthcare plan" and see what he does with it. He argued for it years ago. He said during the campaign that he was for it. He said after the election/erection that his bill would "cover everybody."

Put up or shut up, bitch.

As much as I would like him to shut up and as likely as he is to be impeached and thrown out of office in disgrace, if he can ram through Medicare for All before he goes away, he can go down in history as replacing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with "something terrific".

 

It would be a true "Homerism"*

*To succeed despite idiocy. See Groening, Matt.*


Homer: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!**


**Quote provided as additional compensation for crappy weather weekend.

 

I guess some of our local idiots here are going to have to review their earlier posts....