• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

De-fund NPR and PBS

Defund NPR and PBS!

  • I agree!

    Votes: 41 47.7%
  • I disagree.

    Votes: 45 52.3%

  • Total voters
    86
Because tax dollars are collected from EVERYONE, and they're collected at gun point. People who do not wish to have their money wasted on an illegal uncosntitutional government propaganda network are denied their freedom to decline association by the fact that the payment is extracted via taxation, not solicitation.

Why can't you write your own check? That way the Americans won't be imposed upon by an intrusive government bent on destroying their liberty.

Okay. And that works for dealing with NPR. But what about all the tax dollars that I don't believe in that goes to fund the "war on drugs" that puts teenage pot smokers in jail where they are exposed and damn near forced into gang activity or to pay for no-bid contracts that legislators grant to government contractors who give them the largest campaign donation?

I mean if you're against taxpayer money going to things we don't believe in, then let's apply it to all the things that we don't believe in.
 
Considering how ardently the Founding Fathers favored education and open debate, I think they would much prefer tax-paid informative public radio available to all the social strata of Americans rather than whatever crap brings in ratings that corporations are willing to shovel like slop to the lowest common denominator in order to get enough advertising to sell their consumerist drivel.

Establish the substantiation of your conclusion by posting information on the newspapers the federal government was authorized to subsidize in the years following the ratification of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers DID welcome and encourage heated debate and discussion in the nation's PRIVATELY OWNED media.

They DID NOT believe the government should fund those media with tax dollars.

So your argument is like JFK's PT51, completely blown out of the water.
 
Okay. And that works for dealing with NPR. But what about all the tax dollars that I don't believe in that goes to fund the "war on drugs" that puts teenage pot smokers in jail where they are exposed and damn near forced into gang activity or to pay for no-bid contracts that legislators grant to government contractors who give them the largest campaign donation?

I mean if you're against taxpayer money going to things we don't believe in, then let's apply it to all the things that we don't believe in.


Ah, so now you're introducing yet another non sequitur to continue your defense of NPR.

Well, the war on drugs is both irrelevant to this issue and personally the Mayor, as all libertarians do, does not believe that the simple possession or use of drugs for recreational purposes should carry any criminal penalties whatsoever, merely certain behaviors currently criminalized with alcohol should also be criminalized when undertaken by those influenced by other chemical substances.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you're attempting to trap Mayor Snorkum in an inconsistency.
 
Establish the substantiation of your conclusion by posting information on the newspapers the federal government was authorized to subsidize in the years following the ratification of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers DID welcome and encourage heated debate and discussion in the nation's PRIVATELY OWNED media.

They DID NOT believe the government should fund those media with tax dollars.

So your argument is like JFK's PT51, completely blown out of the water.

And in the Founding Father's day, how many private corporate media conglomerates existed that owned the majority of media outlets?

The Founding Fathers weren't just against government tyranny. They were against tyranny in general. Whether it came from governments or from private corporate organizations.
 
And in the Founding Father's day, how many private corporate media conglomerates existed that owned the majority of media outlets?

The Founding Fathers weren't just against government tyranny. They were against tyranny in general. Whether it came from governments or from private corporate organizations.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Gee, look at that. Not one mention of restricting freedom of speech of anyone with money.


Also, what you're saying is that you are not aware of the existence of ABC, NBC, SeeBS, MSNBC, and CNN as counters to Fox News, not to mention Huffypoo, the Daily Kooks, the various print media on line and the print media still using the corpses of trees, almost all of which promote the leftwing dogma shared by NPR that is so damaging to this nation.

NPR is redundant, as is PBS.


There's a completely free market for opposing and alternative viewpoints out there. There's is no need for an unconstitutional federally funded propaganda network, and the mere fact that it is unconstitutional makes it all the more important that it be eliminated if the nation is to ever regain the protections of the Constitution.
 
No, that is simply a slippery slope fallacy. Just because the government can do some things does not mean it can do anything it wants.


It's a fallacy to call it a fallacy, as any student of history can point to a thousand examples of despots who rouse the rabble to gain control, only to be worse than the government they replaced.

Julius Caesar.
Stalin.
Mao.
Pol Pot.
Idi Amin.
Gadhaffi.
Saddam Hussein.
Obama (he's on the list because of how the Obama Care act was imposed, not to mention his penchant for golf).
Che Gueverra.
Castro.
Others not invoked because of Godwin's Rule.
 
It's a fallacy to call it a fallacy, as any student of history can point to a thousand examples of despots who rouse the rabble to gain control, only to be worse than the government they replaced.


Stalin.
.

Stalin was worse than Lenin?

If you just mean the communists, I'm not sure that I can see how they were worse than the Romanovs. About the same, perhaps, but it would take some doing to actually be worse.
 
Stalin was worse than Lenin?

If you just mean the communists, I'm not sure that I can see how they were worse than the Romanovs. About the same, perhaps, but it would take some doing to actually be worse.

yes, Stalin was worse than Lenin. The deliberate starvation of the Ukraine dwarfs in comparison anything Lenin did or the Romanovs before them. There's nothing in history before Stalin to compare to in sheer numbers and brutality.
 
The answer to the question is entirely meaningless, assuming there even was an undeniable factual answer the real answer to the question is "Its not worth out time to ask it." The NPR PBS issue isn't about budgets at all, its about A) politics and B) ideology and nothing to do with C) practicality. Many conservatives oppose funding it because they believe they are news sources which aren't unbiased, and because its part of their ideology that semi-private organizations shouldn't receive government funding regardless of what they do.

Problem is, as many many many people here have pointed out, the money is pennies in comparison to the real problem. You can argue an ideological argument, and may feel very strongly about it because it your ideology, but there's no denying that whoever "wins" this battle isn't going to have much to show for it results. In other words, the amount of energy being invested in this fight, is far greater than any gain anyone can get out of it. If this was a car we were all trying to get as fast as possible, this fight would be likened to an argument over its color. Some of us think red is cooler, other think blue is the way to go, but even if we get our way its not going to have any affect on what really matters.

So you have to ask yourself, whats more important being ideologically correct or actually changing something?
 
So you have to ask yourself, whats more important being ideologically correct or actually changing something?


You're assuming symbolism has no meaning. Certainly the amount of money saved is small compared to Obama's multi-trillion dollar budget.

So why are those on the left so insistent we not cut their pet propaganda broadcasting network?

Because losing that gem will highlight to the public the growing impotence of the Left.

While all informed observers know perfectly well that the Americans control only the House and the Left controls the Senate, the White House and too many of the politically motivated courts, nevertheless the Americans are obligated to establish their ideological bona fides by standing firm on the divorce of the Left's propaganda station from the taxpayer funded tit.

Symbolically it's important.

Failing to provide the symbolic context of the struggle will preclude the ability to factually alter the outcome of the contest in favor of the American side of the struggle. Hence the symbolism is of as great and fundamental importance as the future struggles over other more structural aspects of ending the Left's deficits and restoring fiscal maturity to the United States.


If it wasn't important symbolically the Left would let it die. They cannot afford the appearance of losing any of their apparatus. Hence the redshirt violence in Wisconsin and elsewhere, hence the hysterical response to what is cut and dried simple correction of a constitutional violation over NPR.
 
You're assuming symbolism has no meaning. Certainly the amount of money saved is small compared to Obama's multi-trillion dollar budget.

So why are those on the left so insistent we not cut their pet propaganda broadcasting network?

Because losing that gem will highlight to the public the growing impotence of the Left.

While all informed observers know perfectly well that the Americans control only the House and the Left controls the Senate, the White House and too many of the politically motivated courts, nevertheless the Americans are obligated to establish their ideological bona fides by standing firm on the divorce of the Left's propaganda station from the taxpayer funded tit.

Symbolically it's important.

Failing to provide the symbolic context of the struggle will preclude the ability to factually alter the outcome of the contest in favor of the American side of the struggle. Hence the symbolism is of as great and fundamental importance as the future struggles over other more structural aspects of ending the Left's deficits and restoring fiscal maturity to the United States.


If it wasn't important symbolically the Left would let it die. They cannot afford the appearance of losing any of their apparatus. Hence the redshirt violence in Wisconsin and elsewhere, hence the hysterical response to what is cut and dried simple correction of a constitutional violation over NPR.

Just for future notice, I do read most posts in a topic, and I will read yours however I won't respond to them because they defy all logic and reason. I mean only people who agree with you politically are American? Come on there's never been a universal opinion about anything in this country, but I'm not going to write an argument as to why liberals are American citizens because its not going to accomplish anything.
 
Just for future notice, I do read most posts in a topic, and I will read yours however I won't respond to them because they defy all logic and reason. I mean only people who agree with you politically are American? Come on there's never been a universal opinion about anything in this country, but I'm not going to write an argument as to why liberals are American citizens because its not going to accomplish anything.

Well, since Mayor Snorkum's posts ARE logic and reason you won't have any excuse to not respond.

If you wish to deny the effectiveness of symbolism in political disputes then you are being both unreasonable and illogical. you may care to wonder way another poster repeatedly used the phrase "ultimate solution" rather than "final solution". You may wish to wonder why, if NPR's budgetary impact is so slight (yet Mayor Snorkum could easily find a thousand NPR sized items to delete from this government's budget) that the Left is having such a fit over it.

It's because of the symbolism.

Yes, only people who support the principles this nation was founded on can be considered true Americans. Those demanding wealth re-distribution, free rides, special treatment, or exemption from personal responsibility and consequences never absorbed the meaning of what it is to be a true American. They're at best "citizens of the United States", not Americans.

One trying to destroy what America stands for cannot be an American himself.


Again, the word "American" is a symbol, and using the correct symbols is essential in any discussion, as is ensuring those symbols are not misapplied by others.

And it has been noted that you refused to address the refutation of your claim that the battle over NPR is insignificant.
 
You know, here's my stance on that.

You're right in that I wouldn't want tax dollars to go to Fox News. But I wouldn't want my tax dollars to go to Air America either.

The reason for that is because all they do is political opinion. Which is not the same as political discussion nor the same as political news.

Now if there was a conservative news show that provided discussion or news without the opinion part, I would probably check it out or support it's ability to get tax dollars. But this is because I don't believe in having few sources of information and news.

The problem with Fox News and also MSNBC is that they give opinionated slants to all they do. These slants are obvious to the other side, which is why the other side never tunes in to the opposing channel.

But why does Fox News and MSNBC give opinionated slants in the first place? Because the executives there know it's the best way to maintain an audience and so can command high ratings which they can then demand high revenues for advertisements.

So, yeah, actually I wouldn't mind tax dollars going to shows that give conservative slants on news, discussions, and education - as long as it took out the opinions.

To say that NPR and PBS are less biased than those two networks misses the point. As long as people are reporting they will have biases, and this will show in their broadcasts. Public broadcasters show may try to show both sides; I think that they do a much better job than most reporters, but they are still not perfect. Funding opinionated news is inevitable as long as it goes to humans.
 
yes, Stalin was worse than Lenin. The deliberate starvation of the Ukraine dwarfs in comparison anything Lenin did or the Romanovs before them. There's nothing in history before Stalin to compare to in sheer numbers and brutality.

Stalin starved all the dwarfs in the Ukraine???!!! That bastard....!!!!


.
 
To say that NPR and PBS are less biased than those two networks misses the point. As long as people are reporting they will have biases, and this will show in their broadcasts. Public broadcasters show may try to show both sides; I think that they do a much better job than most reporters, but they are still not perfect. Funding opinionated news is inevitable as long as it goes to humans.

I think that's really what happens. I once told a Conservative friend of mine that he and I could both write about the same event, but his take would sound slanted to the right, and mine would be more to the left. Even though both may be completely factually accurate. There will never be completely unbiased reporting as long as it is done by humans. On the other hand, I'm not sure I would want to watch news reported by robots.

Some (though certainly not all) conservatives would define "liberal slant" as "critical of the Republican party" (even when they deserve it). Some people do not like any "news coverage" that doesn't conform to their point of view, and this goes for both sides.

I understand the budget constraints, and maybe cutting the funding to NPR is the best thing to do from that point of view. Eventually, the Republicans are going to have trouble balancing the budget simply by going after their political enemies and programs they don't like. Most of the budget is tied up in Social Security, Medicare and Defense. Unless they have the political cojones to touch those, they'll never balance the budget.
 
And in the Founding Father's day, how many private corporate media conglomerates existed that owned the majority of media outlets?

The Founding Fathers weren't just against government tyranny. *They were against tyranny in general. *Whether it came from governments or from private corporate organizations.

Indeed! *They were specifically against the tyranny of corporations:

"I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson 1809

"the selfish spirit of commerce (that) knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.". Thomas Jefferson 1814

We must remember it was soulless corporations that influenced the English government toward the many injustices that our founding revolutionaries fought to throw off. If they saw today that the "free marketplace of ideas" was overwhelmingly dominated by corporations, they would consider our 'democracy' a failed one.

I am not sure what they would propose to do about it, but a public broadcasting network would be the least radical of solutions that could be proposed. I actually think they would pass a law for the immediate nullification of media corporation charters, and sell off their assets, their newspapers and broadcast stations, to private individuals. The law would prohibit ownership of media by corporations.

Our founders were radicals, and would equally be considered that today, maybe even more so.
 
I think that's really what happens. I once told a Conservative friend of mine that he and I could both write about the same event, but his take would sound slanted to the right, and mine would be more to the left. Even though both may be completely factually accurate. There will never be completely unbiased reporting as long as it is done by humans. On the other hand, I'm not sure I would want to watch news reported by robots.

Some (though certainly not all) conservatives would define "liberal slant" as "critical of the Republican party" (even when they deserve it). Some people do not like any "news coverage" that doesn't conform to their point of view, and this goes for both sides.

I understand the budget constraints, and maybe cutting the funding to NPR is the best thing to do from that point of view. Eventually, the Republicans are going to have trouble balancing the budget simply by going after their political enemies and programs they don't like. Most of the budget is tied up in Social Security, Medicare and Defense. Unless they have the political cojones to touch those, they'll never balance the budget.

Problem is that balancing the budget is not limited to the shoulders of the Republicans. But I do agree that they (GOP) have been averse to adequately tackling the "big meat" items in the budget mess. Like most all our elected officials. First priority is getting re-elected.

The Democrats are fully engaged in the current cat and mouse game of "you go first" with proposed cuts. And Durbin/Reid and crew have been merciless in attacking anything the Republicans put on the table. Both sides are playing politics. And in the meantime our economic woes go unaddressed.

.
 
I am not sure what they would propose to do about it, but a public broadcasting network would be the least radical of solutions that could be proposed. I actually think they would pass a law for the immediate nullification of media corporation charters, and sell off their assets, their newspapers and broadcast stations, to private individuals. The law would prohibit ownership of media by corporations.

Our founders were radicals, and would equally be considered that today, maybe even more so.

....leaving GOVERNMENT as the only viable owner of media?.....please......my revisionist friend.

Our Founders were right wing radicals...... they were conservatives at least.....libertarians at best.......and if alive today, would be 100% against DNC GOVERNMENT RADIO/TV INC.
.
.
.
 
....leaving GOVERNMENT as the only viable owner of media?.....please......my revisionist friend.

Our Founders were right wing radicals...... they were conservatives at least.....libertarians at best.......and if alive today, would be 100% against DNC GOVERNMENT RADIO/TV INC.
.
.
.

Oh my god. Read my post again. I said "sale of their assets to private individuals". How, in any way, would that leave the government as the sole owner of media? Reading comprehension, a test should be required before anyone is allowed to post here.
 
Almost 50-50..
And I do not think that all of the conservatives are against this proposal.
I wonder, why do the conservatives fear public radio/TV so much ??
 
Oh my god. Read my post again. I said "sale of their assets to private individuals". How, in any way, would that leave the government as the sole owner of media? Reading comprehension, a test should be required before anyone is allowed to post here.

Tea bagging conservatives are not noted for being "well-read".
 
Tea bagging conservatives are not noted for being "well-read".

More like, tea party critics are not noted for being "well read" or informed.

NYT said:
Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html


You need to read more apparently.
 
Do you agree or disagree that we need to stop giving federal $$ to NPR and PBS? I'd like someone who disagree with the defunding, to give some good reasons why the taxpayers should be forced to give money to a radio and TV station.

Thank you.

Federal funds don't apy for "a radio and TV station". They support the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which, in turn, supports 100s of rural-area stations that locally opt to convey either local productions or to carry NPR or PBS content.

If you defund it, the only people you're really punishing are the people in the Great Plains and rural South whose stations aren't able to support themselves because their areas are too sparsely populated. The "big city" liberals will continue to keep their stations because of their financial support.

But this nation continues to get dumber and dumber with each passing year, so why not eliminate what little intelligent television and radio content the remains (that doesn't require you to pay for it).

Oh, wait: it does. Each taxpayer pays about $.08 per year.

While we're at it: why are the right so infatuated with being taxed for things they don't like? I get taxed for A LOT of things I don't like. I've been getting taxed to pay for two wars I disagree with. I've been taxed for farm subsidies (which NO ONE is doing anything about, by the way - even Bachmann, Fincher, et. al. RECEIVE farm subsidies).

And, by the way, I've had to pay a lot more than $.08 per year for that stupid ****.

Here's my deal: I'll pay your $.08/year for the CPB, if you'll pay my share of taxes that go to support War and Farm Subsidies.
 
Back
Top Bottom