View Poll Results: Defund NPR and PBS!

Voters
122. You may not vote on this poll
  • I agree!

    63 51.64%
  • I disagree.

    59 48.36%
Page 5 of 52 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 519

Thread: De-fund NPR and PBS

  1. #41
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,819

    Re: De-fund NPR and PBS

    Quote Originally Posted by Badmutha View Post
    As our Forefathers and Founders turn in their graves.....at even the notion of Government Radio and TV......

    .....I say cut every bloody cent of funding for NPR and PBS.....yesterday.
    .
    .
    .
    I imagine the idea of radio itself would cause them to burst a blood vessel or two.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #42
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: De-fund NPR and PBS

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    The Constitution does not authorize the funding of a government propaganda network.

    Nor should people who oppose the socialist message of NPR be forced to pay taxes to support it.

    NPR should compete for dollars on the same free-market place that Limbaugh, Beck, and John and Ken are competing in. If they can't remain financially solvent then that's proof enough that the majority don't want it, and as Mayor Sokum keeps hearing from the left, the will of the majority is supposed to prevail.
    Why does every Conservative think that everything the government does has to be written in the Constitution? This document gives Congress the authority to write laws and the law that they wrote authorizing public broadcasting is the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. It's the same stupid argument Conservatives used in their attempt to condemn the President's authority to establish the trust fund for BP to pay for lost income and repair damanges caused by the oil spill. "Where in the Constitution does it give Obama the authority to do that," the talking heads kept asking. Well, it's not there. But...

    Under one of their enumerated powers, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act which gives the President the aforementioned authority. Everytime I heard that stupid question being asked and heard callers agree with the likes of Rush, Hannity, Levin, Borks and Coulter, I just shook my head and asked, "Surely their 'educated' listeners aren't that stupid? But your repeat of this same foolish question makes me think maybe some of you are.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-18-11 at 08:56 PM.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: De-fund NPR and PBS

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    I won't just automatically assume you meant this so I want to clarify.

    Do you think NPR is the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh?
    No. Limbaugh satisfies a market-based need. NPR doesn't have the guts to compete in the free marketplace of ideas.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: De-fund NPR and PBS

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    No. Limbaugh satisfies a market-based need. NPR doesn't have the guts to compete in the free marketplace of ideas.
    The vast majority of NPR funding is private. Mayor snorkum is merely avariciously spiteful at this fact.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 08:55 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,951

    Re: De-fund NPR and PBS

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    I disagree, like others have stated, there is a benefit to having news stations that don't have to please their bosses.
    Yeah.....tell Juan Williams.......or any other NPR Liberal or PBS Democrat that dared to say anything negative about the plantation.

    Pleasing the DNC boss.....is why they get funding my willfully ignorant friend.
    .
    .
    .
    .

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 08:55 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,951

    Re: De-fund NPR and PBS

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    The vast majority of NPR funding is private. Mayor snorkum is merely avariciously spiteful at this fact.
    Well lets make it 100%.......

    Crazy idea here.....if you Libtards love it so much....you pay for it out of your pocket....rather than mine.
    .
    .
    .

  7. #47
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,361

    Re: De-fund NPR and PBS

    Quote Originally Posted by Badmutha View Post
    Yeah.....tell Juan Williams.......or any other NPR Liberal or PBS Democrat that dared to say anything negative about the plantation.

    Pleasing the DNC boss.....is why they get funding my willfully ignorant friend.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    I love a good conspiracy theory, also love the formatting. It's the cherry on top.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: De-fund NPR and PBS

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Why does every Conservative think that everything the government does has to be written in the Constitution?
    Because that's what the Constitution says?

    Because there's no point in having a written Constitution if its not going to be obeyed?

    Because deviating from the Constitution is the cause of all the problems this nation has had in the last 100 years?

    No.

    All of the above, those were rethorical questions.

    This document gives Congress the authority to write laws
    Oh! LOOK AT THAT! You forgot to say that the Constitution places limits on the laws Congress is allowed to write, it places limits on the aspects of the country Congress can write laws about, and it makes it perfectly clear that if the Constitution does not specifically grant Congress the authority to do something, Congress does not, in fact, have the authority to do it.

    Some of the things the Constitution does not give Congress permission to do is create a national pension scheme, a national health care scheme, a national education scheme, or a national radio corporation.

    and the law that they wrote authorizing public broadcasting is the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
    So? They wrote a law they lacked the authority to enact. That's all there is to that.

    It's the same stupid argument Conservatives used in their attempt to condemn the President's authority to establish the trust fund for BP to pay for lost income and repair damanges caused by the oil spill. "Where in the Constitution does it give Obama the authority to do that," the talking heads kept asking. Well, it's not there. But...
    Well, since you yourself just admitted the authority isn't in the Constitution but you don't care, when can we expect you to throw in your support for hereditary monarchy in the US? That's not allowed in the Constitution either, but you just said that doesn't matter.

    Under one of their enumerated powers, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act which gives the President the aforementioned authority.
    So, first you say the Constitution does not grant the Congress the power to do something, then you turn around and claim it does.

    Can you figure out which position you wish to take? No one else can do that for you.

    Everytime I heard that stupid question being asked and heard callers agree with the likes of Rush, Hannity, Levin, Borks and Coulter, I just shook my head and asked, "Sure their 'educated listeners' aren't that stupid? But your repeat of this same foolish question makes me think maybe some of you are.
    Hmmm...it doesn't look like anyone has flagged your post for ad hominem nastiness. But I'm not going to bother, you've already demonsrated your inability to support your position.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: De-fund NPR and PBS

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    I am pissed because as I was posting I got timed out, and it erased my post.

    Basically, I want to continue federal funds to NPR and PBS. In brief, I think that they provide me with political news, as opposed to commercial radio news stations that instead provide political opinion.

    Also, NPR and PBS are more prone to political discussion, whereas commercially sponsored shows tend towards political debate. NPR actually lets people talk and discuss issues, whereas commercially sponsored shows tend to validate their host in order to bring in their audience to bring about high ratings to bring in more advertising revenue.

    Another point was that the reason why NPR and PBS is being targeted to have it's funding reduced is because of it's political news shows. However, not every show it airs is about politics or news. Some are about other subjects such as cuisine or automotive advice, and so is more educational than journalistic or entertaining.

    One more point is that I commercially sponsored shows are more biased. This is because shows rely on corporate sponsorship to bring in ad revenue. If corporate sponsorship becomes the only way for journalists to express news, then they'll be less likely to publish reports that go against those corporations. So having only corporately sponsored news shows will be detrimental to the journalistic integrity of reporters, especially investigative journalists. I would prefer that the people have at least one source of news that doesn't have to worry about criticizing those who write their paychecks.

    That's the long and short of why I want funding for NPR and PBS to continue.
    You have the freedom to donate as much of your own money to NPR and PBS as you wish. Other people should have their freedom to not donate restored to them. Your donation should not be tax deductible. If not enough people are willing to donate their own money to NPR and NPR becomes a financial failure, that's a demonstration that the will of the people is against that sort of boondoggle.

    Nothing could demonstrate the power of true democracy more than the freedom of people to express their desires by spending or witholding funds from a given enterprise.

    Nothing can demonstrate the fear the left has towards true democracy than their need to deny people their freedom to express that choice.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 08:55 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,951

    Re: De-fund NPR and PBS

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    I remember tuning into NPR while driving through the US. They were discussing healthcare, and the segment focussed in on the Canadian system. I think if more Americans would have tuned in, they would hold a much different opinion on the facets of our system, suchs as our government does not run our healthcare as opposed to just funding it (amongst other interesting tidbits and facts that even educated me about my own system).
    So government holds the purse strings......but they "don't run it".......

    It was an interesting and informative couple of hours that didn't *GASP* once mention "death panels," and other faulty misconceptions. It's great when a station does not have an agenda. Like Americans, we have our own publicly funded radio (CBC) and if my government decided to scrap it, I would be one of the first on Parliament Hill to protest.
    So a statist.....listening to statist radio......decides everything the state says is 100% true.

    The Democrat Party holds the purse strings of PBS and NPR.......and PBS and NPR dont have an agenda?

    .......I mean you seriously believe this?
    .,.

    .
    .

Page 5 of 52 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •