• 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
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.

Yes, as history has revealed the Founding Fathers were all dedicated supporters of the proposition of "from each according to his abilities and from each according to his needs." That's why the originally ratified Constitution made each citizen a taxpayer owing the government first dibs on his wages.

Oh.

Wait a minute.

The original Constitution and Bill of Rights does not allow taxation of income. In fact, it protects the right of the private citizen to own property, and no limits are set on the amount of wealth any man can own.

The limits on the power of business or any other group to influence Congress were placed in the Constitution by flatly limiting the power the Congress has in the first place.

Article I, Section 8 defines what Congress may do, and defines ONLY what Congress may do.

The phrase "general welfare" in that Section do not serve as a stealth blank check to bypass those limitations, nor does the Interstate Commerce Clause grant the Congress the authority to trample rights guaranteed in other portions of the Constitution, such as the Freedom of Association promised on the First Amendment, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Second, and the security of one's person promised in the Fourth.

The Founders recognized that the Constitution would be effective for as long the people understood their Constitution and required their representatives obey it, and for no longer than that. The rise of the Progressives (aka socialists) in the Twentieth Century ushered in a concerted effort to subvert the Constitution and make the people either ignorant of it's meaning or desirous of it's obsolecence for reasons of personal greed. The Progressives succeeded to the point where it's doubtful the republic can be restored.

Certainly the Republic will not be restored by making government even bigger.

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.

Our nation's Founders declined to establish a national newspaper, ergo, they would not be eager to create a national broadcasting system. The question of any such national organ, then and now, is who gets editorial control. NPR has shown that friends of the Republic will not always be controlling the discussion, and there's no reason the taxpayers should be forced to fund their enemies.
 
No one thinks that....

Her point is, that people who think NPR has a liberal bias, is people that think no conservative bias=liberal bias.
 
Defunding NPR is idiotic as it would save only $60 million. $60 million is nothing, not even a drop in the bucket. This has nothing to do w/ saving $$$$, rather it has everything to do with getting rid of media that isn't Fox News-esque.
 
I am an American. Always have been. Always will be and proud to be so.

Then you'll have to explain why you hate the princicples this nation was founded on and why you wish to see the nation transformed so radically that it can no longer defend the freedoms is was founded on preserving.

No one seeking the destruction of the United States is an American. Sorry, that's just not consistent.

t is an insult to thinking people to attempt to pretend that Beck and his biases are "pro American". They are pro insanity. They are pro right wing. They are pro nutjob. they are pro whacko. They are pro corporatist.

Oh.

I see. Someone who can present a logical and factual argument against those directly involved in the dissolution of the United States and working towards it's radical transformation are "whacko", "nutjob", and, for some reason "corporatist" (whatever that might mean, the Mayor doesn't waste time tracking all the left-wing fringe mind-control jargon). Then again, so many thins Beck has predicted have come true.

Where's ACORN now? As Beck predicted, broken up and scattered. Still doing it's corrupt thing, but under the guise of many names now.

Talk to us about Van Jones.

Beck has you people...er those people wired and they resent the exposure.

None of that is pro American except in the mind of the True Belivers who prostrate themselves before the same perverted and twisted altar Beck worships at.

Which articles of the Constitution are you opposed to again?

They are about as anti-American as one can get and not be waging war against the USA.

Again, be specific. All Americans agree that people have the freedom to associate. That means, among other things, they have the freedom to not associate as well. Which means Americans are against closed shop unions and collective bargaining practices in which people are compelled to join unions to gain employment.

Americans believe in the freedom of competition, and thus they oppose corporate subsidies of all stripes, including the subsidy of one particular left wing radio station called NPR. You use the word "corporatist", yet you support the taxpayer support of a corporation. What, exactly should any honest observer make of that inconsistency?
 
Last edited:
Yes, as history has revealed the Founding Fathers were all dedicated supporters of the proposition of "from each according to his abilities and from each according to his needs." That's why the originally ratified Constitution made each citizen a taxpayer owing the government first dibs on his wages.

Oh.

Wait a minute.

The original Constitution and Bill of Rights does not allow taxation of income. In fact, it protects the right of the private citizen to own property, and no limits are set on the amount of wealth any man can own.

The limits on the power of business or any other group to influence Congress were placed in the Constitution by flatly limiting the power the Congress has in the first place.

Article I, Section 8 defines what Congress may do, and defines ONLY what Congress may do.

The phrase "general welfare" in that Section do not serve as a stealth blank check to bypass those limitations, nor does the Interstate Commerce Clause grant the Congress the authority to trample rights guaranteed in other portions of the Constitution, such as the Freedom of Association promised on the First Amendment, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Second, and the security of one's person promised in the Fourth.

The Founders recognized that the Constitution would be effective for as long the people understood their Constitution and required their representatives obey it, and for no longer than that. The rise of the Progressives (aka socialists) in the Twentieth Century ushered in a concerted effort to subvert the Constitution and make the people either ignorant of it's meaning or desirous of it's obsolecence for reasons of personal greed. The Progressives succeeded to the point where it's doubtful the republic can be restored.

Certainly the Republic will not be restored by making government even bigger.



Our nation's Founders declined to establish a national newspaper, ergo, they would not be eager to create a national broadcasting system. The question of any such national organ, then and now, is who gets editorial control. NPR has shown that friends of the Republic will not always be controlling the discussion, and there's no reason the taxpayers should be forced to fund their enemies.

Socialism, as you call it, gained credence in this country as a direct response to the rise of corporatism. It is my contention that the founders were explicitly opposed to corporatism, while only vaguely opposed to socialism. This is to be expected, because the notions that make up socialism hadn't yet matured or gained any kind of influence, while corporatism already had. In fairness, I would never contend that our founders would choose 'socialism' over the kind of system they had during their lives.

But that system that they had was relatively free of corporate power, and the attendant dizzying disparities in wealth. However, Jefferson is seen warning that it was already trying to gain a foothold, and that we ought to fight it for the sake of our liberty.

I believe they would be appalled at what has become of our democracy, and our media, today. I also agree with you that they would not particularly cherish the notion of NPR and PBS. But they would certainly recognize it as a response to a diseased corporatist system. As an effort to treat the symptoms and not the sickness itself. Even so, I seriously doubt they would withhold the medicine that gives some relief, while ignoring the reason the symptoms arose.

The founders imagined our remaining as free of the abuses of anything similar to England Inc. as they were. But that didn't happen. As such, unless we are willing to react exactly as they would react, and do all of the things they would do, and thereby fix the big picture, I think we'd better hold onto what you fantastically think of as an abuse of some sort: that being public broadcasting. All the while ignoring the true abuses to our liberty.

When you are ready to address the big picture, then we'll talk, and I will gladly concede the dissolution of public broadcasting.
 
It is possible she may never have listened to it, and doesn't know.
 
The only people who think public broadcasting is "too liberal" are those who think Beck is "fair and balanced".

Cute, but not true. I recognize that Fox is not fair and balanced, although certainly better than some, and I've never heard Beck. I definitely think NPR was too liberal the last time I listened to them. That would be about ten years ago. I got so fed up I just didn't listen to them any longer.
 
Defunding NPR is idiotic as it would save only $60 million. $60 million is nothing, not even a drop in the bucket. This has nothing to do w/ saving $$$$, rather it has everything to do with getting rid of media that isn't Fox News-esque.

That's right. $60 million is nothing. But, as someone said once, a million here and a million there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. I don't care if it's $60. PBS should not be getting any taxpayers dollars. Let the DNC give PBS the $60 million. If they want to buy a media outlet they should spend their own money. Well, money they get from the unions. And, since $60 million is not even a drop in the bucket, there's no reason the DNC can't pick up the tab, is there?
 
Cute, but not true. I recognize that Fox is not fair and balanced, although certainly better than some, and I've never heard Beck. I definitely think NPR was too liberal the last time I listened to them. That would be about ten years ago. I got so fed up I just didn't listen to them any longer.

I'm beginning to think that 'liberal' really just means thinking-person. NPR has lots of different programming.
 
Well now, is there anything presented on NPR or PBS that challenges your disdain for conservatism? If not, perhaps it's not making you think as much you believe. Does that make sense?

I don't have distain for conservatism. I can't stand the mutilated self-serving version being peddled by the GOP.
 
NPR would be better off without the funding. It would do away with them being attacked constantly for being too liberal.

Right, because being entirely privately funded has protected CNN, MSNBC and the big three from being constantly accused of liberal bias. :lol:

I also wish FOX would do away with "Fair and Balanced" so I could just enjoy right leaning programing without all the bitching. It might also do away with them trying so hard to be fair and balanced I feel like I'm watching CNN.

Hoo, boy! :lol:
 
Killing federal funding for NPR is a first essential step. If that step cannot be taken, the task cannot be done and the United States cannot survive.

That's how simple the issue is confronting the nation today.

Because, of course, funding NPR is the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of the unConstitutional activities of the Federal government. :lol:
 
The original Constitution and Bill of Rights does not allow taxation of income.

Yeah, then that pesky 16th Amendment came along.

Article I, Section 8 defines what Congress may do, and defines ONLY what Congress may do.

Except the Amendments which grant Congress the authority to pass whatever laws are necessary to enforce the provisions of those Amendments, of course.

NPR has shown that friends of the Republic will not always be controlling the discussion, and there's no reason the taxpayers should be forced to fund their enemies.

Enemies?

Richard Nixon, is that YUO?!
 
The only people who think public broadcasting is "too liberal" are those who think Beck is "fair and balanced".

FOX has liberals on it's payroll. NPR doesn't have conservative on it's payroll. Also, if George Soros thought it wasn't liberal, would he be one of their top donors? He only donates to the left.
 
FOX has liberals on it's payroll. NPR doesn't have conservative on it's payroll. Also, if George Soros thought it wasn't liberal, would he be one of their top donors? He only donates to the left.

MSNBC has conservatives on it's payroll. Does that make them not conservative?

Why does almost every single post you make invoke Soros?
 
MSNBC has conservatives on it's payroll. Does that make them not conservative?

Why does almost every single post you make invoke Soros?

One conservative? And why is Soros off limits?
 
Tacticalevildan: "Right, because being entirely privately funded has protected CNN, MSNBC and the big three from being constantly accused of liberal bias."

Are you somehow under the impression the discussion is about protecting NPR's reputation? Don't be silly. They would still have the same bias they already have but taxpayers wouldn't be forced to support them.

Enemies? Nixon? Noooo, I think you're thinking of the guy who said, "We reward our friends and punish our enemies." Unfortunately, his enemies aren't our enemies. Or maybe it was those folks who whined endlessly about the vast right-wing conspiracy. Remember those folks? And if you want to talk about someone with enemies, real or imagined, consider the new mayor of Chicago.
 
Last edited:
I disagree, like others have stated, there is a benefit to having news stations that don't have to please their bosses.

Just curious...does NPR ever have a problem with any Dem policies? Do they ever have a problem with Obama's policies? Or is it only the Republicans and Conservatives who get negative coverage? How are they covering the Unions these days? What kind of coverage does the tea party get?
 
One conservative? And why is Soros off limits?

Is it only one? I can think of more than one off the top of my head.

Why do you have to build those strawmen? Did I say Soros was off limits?
 
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). 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.

I bet they also didn't mention the long waiting lists for people to get knee or hip replacements either. I bet they didn't have one negative thing to say about Canadian health care.
 
I bet they also didn't mention the long waiting lists for people to get knee or hip replacements either. I bet they didn't have one negative thing to say about Canadian health care.

I bet you are making an uninformed guess.
 
Right now Les Miserables is on PBS. How else would this glorious music be accessible to everyone. Listening to it on CD is just not the same. What a loss PBS and NPR would be.
 
I bet they also didn't mention the long waiting lists for people to get knee or hip replacements either. I bet they didn't have one negative thing to say about Canadian health care.

Rationing is coming anyway. Obama-care or not. We can't go on with continuing to guarantee people any healthcare they need. That's what's killing the budget, and I sincerely doubt that the Republicans have the political will do anything. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm skeptical.
 
Tacticalevildan: "Right, because being entirely privately funded has protected CNN, MSNBC and the big three from being constantly accused of liberal bias."

Are you somehow under the impression the discussion is about protecting NPR's reputation? Don't be silly. They would still have the same bias they already have but taxpayers wouldn't be forced to support them.

Enemies? Nixon? Noooo, I think you're thinking of the guy who said, "We reward our friends and punish our enemies." Unfortunately, his enemies aren't our enemies. Or maybe it was those folks who whined endlessly about the vast right-wing conspiracy. Remember those folks? And if you want to talk about someone with enemies, real or imagined, consider the new mayor of Chicago.

I'd respond to you, but you obviously didn't read my comments in the context of the post I was replying to.
 
I am an American. Always have been. Always will be and proud to be so.

It is an insult to thinking people to attempt to pretend that Beck and his biases are "pro American". They are pro insanity. They are pro right wing. They are pro nutjob. they are pro whacko. They are pro corporatist.

None of that is pro American except in the mind of the True Belivers who prostrate themselves before the same perverted and twisted altar Beck worships at.

They are about as anti-American as one can get and not be waging war against the USA.

Although come to think of it, he is doing that also.

I'm with you , Haymarket.
And at time I was a conservative, a Berry Goldwater conservative.
Years of seeing things, and thinking changes this.
But I think I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, but that too is changing.
 
Back
Top Bottom