• 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
It struck me that maybe the Cons just don't want people to be able to read.

Critical thinking does prevent one from becoming a tea partier.

And two functioning brain cells keep one from becoming a left wing hack who specializes in worthless drive by posts on political forums. See how easy it is to play this game :)
 
Hey if you dont want to stand with the Most Intelligent and Successful people in this country......

......the Democrat Party will gladly have you.

Hmm...last I saw, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, etc. weren't proclaiming their love of the Tea Party. Unless you want to argue they aren't among the most intelligent and successful people in the country :roll:

In any case, the NY Times article submitted the idea that the average Tea Partier was above the average American. Okay, so what?
 
One other thing though, I can see people honestly opposing it for non-fiscal reasons if they believe there is a liberal slant, even a slight one. The government funds should not be used to advance one political agenda over another. Now I personally have no idea if the NPR is biased or not and if so, how biased it is. I've never listened to it, and I'm not going to take someone else's word for it. But I do think it's VERY difficult to give any kind of in depth analysis of political issues and events without letting one's own political bias creep in. And if one bias is consistently presented over the other with federal tax dollars, then I would call that that as a problem.

Unfortunately it barely registers for any bias, this is more about cultural contention than anything else.
 
Unfortunately it barely registers for any bias, this is more about cultural contention than anything else.
Wouldn't bias be judged by those who view the program, it apparently is because many have a problem with NPR, such as myself although for many other reasons as well. It is bias to me but perhaps not to others but I am not going to listen to some pundit or talking head try to convince me otherwise, I see and hear what I see and hear. Then again I suppose it's good to debate and if NPR is agreeable to you and others then by all means fund it through your payroll taxes, but do not force others to fund something they totally disagree with. NPR has some good programming such as Nova etc. but I have also witnessed bias opinion in these programs not all but some.
 
Meowenstein: "Try telling that to the majority of Americans who support having a public option or the majority who support the DREAM Act."

That's hilarious. A majority of Americans. That's wonderful.

HAHAHAHA Yeah that's soooo hilarious. If by 'hilarious' you mean true. Here you go, champ. Read it and weep (or deny the legitimacy of the polls - whatever you usually do when presented with facts).


Most in U.S. want public health option: poll | Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Americans would like to see a "public option" in health insurance reform but doubt anything Congress does will lower costs or improve care in the short term, according to a poll released on Thursday.

The survey of 2,999 households by Thomson Reuters Corp shows a public skeptical about the cost, quality and accessibility of medical care.

Just under 60 percent of those surveyed said they would like a public option as part of any final healthcare reform legislation, which Republicans and a few Democrats oppose.

Poll: 54 percent support DREAM Act – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Washington (CNN) - A majority of Americans support a measure that would give legal status to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children if they join the military or go to college, according to a new national survey.

But a Gallup poll released Friday also indicates wide partisan and generational divides over the issue.
Fifty-four percent of people questioned in the survey say they would vote for the DREAM Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for thousands of young adults currently living in the country illegally, with 42 percent saying they would vote against the bill and four percent unsure.
 
Funny, isn't it, that no one is presenting evidence supporting the continued existence of taxpayer funding for NPR?

Then again, we all know that there's nothing on NPR that isn't either replicated on commercial media or can't be picked up if needed.

Since NPR serves no unique function, there's no reason for it, even outside of the fact that Constitution does not allow it.
 
HAHAHAHA Yeah that's soooo hilarious. If by 'hilarious' you mean true. Here you go, champ. Read it and weep (or deny the legitimacy of the polls - whatever you usually do when presented with facts).

Wow.

Phony polls.

What a surprise.

Should Mayor Snorkum make the effort to educate the Sgt on the concept of leading questions, selected interest groups, and other forms of poll manipulation?

Would it be worth the effort to point out that polls showing the opposite are available to counter his?

Would it be worthwhile to point out that the voters in 2010 made it perfectly plain that their goal is the repeal of that single-payer crap Obama forced upon us which was later declared unconstitutional by the courts?

No, beyond a certain point it is best to let the easily led be led away.

W
 
HAHAHAHA Yeah that's soooo hilarious. If by 'hilarious' you mean true. Here you go, champ. Read it and weep (or deny the legitimacy of the polls - whatever you usually do when presented with facts).

There is but one poll that matters..........the last was conducted on Nov. 2, 2010.....known as The Biggest Political Ass Whooping in History....

....and the results of this poll.....


UnitedRedStates.jpg



....resulted in a majority of Single Payer advocating Democrats and Amnesty loving liberals being tossed out on their ass.......
.
.
.
 
Funny, isn't it, that no one is presenting evidence supporting the continued existence of taxpayer funding for NPR?

Then again, we all know that there's nothing on NPR that isn't either replicated on commercial media or can't be picked up if needed.

Since NPR serves no unique function, there's no reason for it, even outside of the fact that Constitution does not allow it.

Go back to the first page, the evidence you won't accept is there in its entirety. Amazing what a 5 minute search on google can do, eh?
 
Go back to the first page, the evidence you won't accept is there in its entirety. Amazing what a 5 minute search on google can do, eh?

Yeah, that was days ago, and those silly things were refuted right off the bat. Since there's no reason to keep NPR, there's no reason to fund it with tax dollars. If others feel NPR can have some unstated purpose, then it can live or die on the free market just like every other radio station.

Is there some reason all those programs you people claim are so interesting and important can't survive without the corporate subsidies you condemn for private businesses?
 
Yeah, that was days ago, and those silly things were refuted right off the bat. Since there's no reason to keep NPR, there's no reason to fund it with tax dollars. If others feel NPR can have some unstated purpose, then it can live or die on the free market just like every other radio station.

Is there some reason all those programs you people claim are so interesting and important can't survive without the corporate subsidies you condemn for private businesses?

You didn't get past the first page did you? No one ever really addressed my points, and literally everything you've said in the course of this entire thread has been in some way addressed in the first 15 pages or so. You can take a horse to a watering hole, but you can't make him drink, :shrug:
 
Last edited:
You're counting outlets and accessibility. I'm counting content.

Ok, so then would you agree that if there content is par or above par they should be able to make a profit in the radio/TV industry without any subsidies from the government? What would prevent a quality radio station or TV outlet from continuing business?
 
House Shamefully Votes to Defund NPR | Save the News $1.50 Per tax payer per year.

NPR funded by tax dollars? 3.3 cents per taxpayer in the $100,000 tax bracket

House votes to cut NPR's federal funding - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com Backs up the data from the second source (the $64 million public funding for NPR).

My point is, the amount of money we each spend on NPR (I'm not sure about PBS, but I'm lazy, and will assume its not horrible worse than NPR's funding situation) is pretty minimal. I listen to NPR every morning on my way to school, and honestly, its worth the money my family puts into it in terms of tax dollars.

I don't listen to NPR and don't watch PBS. Explain to me why I should continue to support funding this program, despite the fact that it is a minimal amount. Is there something hindering quality radio or TV stations from doing business? Is there some failure in the market that is making it less efficient? I honestly can't think of any. I think that you are just trying to downplay any argument against funding these two stations instead of actually taking on one of the argument against them. Also, I know you did not say it, but later on the first page someone said "This will not solve the deficit" which is obviously true, but it is a red herring. The issue is funding a public radio/TV station, not eliminating the deficit.
 
I don't listen to NPR and don't watch PBS. Explain to me why I should continue to support funding this program, despite the fact that it is a minimal amount. Is there something hindering quality radio or TV stations from doing business? Is there some failure in the market that is making it less efficient? I honestly can't think of any. I think that you are just trying to downplay any argument against funding these two stations instead of actually taking on one of the argument against them. Also, I know you did not say it, but later on the first page someone said "This will not solve the deficit" which is obviously true, but it is a red herring. The issue is funding a public radio/TV station, not eliminating the deficit.
Perhaps NPR and PBS is the poster child of thousands of entities, programs, causes etc. that shouldn't be funded by our federal or even state governments.
 
I don't listen to NPR and don't watch PBS. Explain to me why I should continue to support funding this program, despite the fact that it is a minimal amount.

It is a public service. Its like paying taxes and that money going to a road project in a different city, or even a state, especially because it is so minimal. It is making the country better in a small way.

Is there something hindering quality radio or TV stations from doing business? Is there some failure in the market that is making it less efficient? I honestly can't think of any.

It isn't quality radio stations as umch as a industry-wide disregard of objective reporting. Look at the major news networks, they are horribly bias. NPR and PBS provide educational services, and factual information, which I would distinguish from the rest of the news services.

Also, I know you did not say it, but later on the first page someone said "This will not solve the deficit" which is obviously true, but it is a red herring. The issue is funding a public radio/TV station, not eliminating the deficit.

I would consider it slightly valid to say that a reason to defund NPR and PBS is the deficit, but at the same time, the money that goes to them is very minimal, all things considered.
 
It is a public service. Its like paying taxes and that money going to a road project in a different city, or even a state, especially because it is so minimal. It is making the country better in a small way.

I understand that, but I was yet to see a reason why it is actually making us better before this below:

It isn't quality radio stations as umch as a industry-wide disregard of objective reporting. Look at the major news networks, they are horribly bias. NPR and PBS provide educational services, and factual information, which I would distinguish from the rest of the news services.

So you feel that the US lacks an objective source of news. I actually disagree, but I can see why funding something like this could be beneficial to the economy. A more informed populace can make better decisions. However, as I have said before I do not think any sort of programming on TV or the radio is lacking. In my opinion, the hundreds of thousands of choices we have are adequate. Look at any subject or programming choice you could possible want. I can bet directTV has 5 different choices of channels for that particular subject.

I would consider it slightly valid to say that a reason to defund NPR and PBS is the deficit, but at the same time, the money that goes to them is very minimal, all things considered.

Yes, it is a reason, but not the only one. Many people would reject funding these stations out of principle. I was just pointing it out because if you read the first page it was something actually brought up solely by someone who was for funding NPR/PBS. No one else (not even the "conservatives") actually even said that before.
 
It is a public service. Its like paying taxes and that money going to a road project in a different city, or even a state, especially because it is so minimal. It is making the country better in a small way.

Then why don't we pay taxes to every organization that "makes the country better in a small way"?

That is NOT the job of the federal government. It's up to the individual people of the country to make the country better. If you believe NPR is a great radio station, great - give money to them. But that doesn't mean every citizen should be forced to pay money to them. I think Feminists for Life is a great organization that does a lot of good in our country. Would you be okay with a very conservative Congress deciding that you have to pay taxes to them?
 
Wow.

Phony polls.

What a surprise.

Should Mayor Snorkum make the effort to educate the Sgt on the concept of leading questions, selected interest groups, and other forms of poll manipulation?

Would it be worth the effort to point out that polls showing the opposite are available to counter his?

Would it be worthwhile to point out that the voters in 2010 made it perfectly plain that their goal is the repeal of that single-payer crap Obama forced upon us which was later declared unconstitutional by the courts?

No, beyond a certain point it is best to let the easily led be led away.

W

Maybe you can explain to me how Reuters and Gallup are phony polls. Never mind. It'll just be more bull****. Carry on in fantasy land.
 
Last edited:
There is but one poll that matters..........the last was conducted on Nov. 2, 2010.....known as The Biggest Political Ass Whooping in History....

....and the results of this poll.....

.

Yeah yeah yeah....the only poll that matters....2010 election...,,bippity bobbity boop blah blah blah...do you ever say anything else?
 
Yeah yeah yeah....the only poll that matters....2010 election...,,bippity bobbity boop blah blah blah...do you ever say anything else?

Your contending the majority of Americas want Subprime Single Payer Health Care and support Amnesty.........

.......The Majority of Americans had a chance to elect liberals who would do these things........

......they declined......in the largest political landslide in US History.....
.
.
.
 
Ok, so then would you agree that if there content is par or above par they should be able to make a profit in the radio/TV industry without any subsidies from the government? What would prevent a quality radio station or TV outlet from continuing business?

Not in the least. Quality does not equal profit (the Japanese have been struggling with making products of excellent quality that were too expensive for profitability).

If you take a look at some of the programming that lands the highest Nielsens, you'll see what I mean.
 
I don't listen to NPR and don't watch PBS. Explain to me why I should continue to support funding this program, despite the fact that it is a minimal amount.

For the same reason that we, as a nation, support a variety of things with our tax dollars that many of us, as individuals, do not directly or tangibly benefit from.

Is there something hindering quality radio or TV stations from doing business? Is there some failure in the market that is making it less efficient? I honestly can't think of any.

Some things, like education and highway maintenance and law enforcement and adjudication of disputes, are too sensitive or complex to trust (or at least trust entirely) to the open market. When government fulfills its proper function, that means it does things some don't agree with -- often to the benefit of others.
 
It is a low priority, and I say that as an NPR listener (I also watch Bill O'Reilly sometimes before anybody starts calling me a Marxist). My issue is that this didn't warrant an "emergency session."

So far Republicans have gone after Unions and NPR. Pretty easy targets. I can't wait to see what happens when it gets down to the heavy lifting, i.e., when it comes to either cutting Defense or raising taxes. My guess is that they'll lose their resolve pretty quickly at that point.

Agreed. If I ask one of my employees to cut $100,000 ($61B) out his department budget and one of his first suggests in a $12 item ($7.5M in the same ratio), I question the competence of that employee. This is just a testament to a) either how clueless the republicans really are or b) how they really have no interest in cutting costs, just in executing their warped agenda. Either way, its a pretty pathetic display. If I were a conservative, I would embarrassed.

Put it another way, if the Repubs are really interested in $61B in cuts and have three months or 100 days do so, they need to find $600M per day in cuts.
 
Last edited:
I don't listen to NPR and don't watch PBS. Explain to me why I should continue to support funding this program, despite the fact that it is a minimal amount. Is there something hindering quality radio or TV stations from doing business? Is there some failure in the market that is making it less efficient? I honestly can't think of any. I think that you are just trying to downplay any argument against funding these two stations instead of actually taking on one of the argument against them. Also, I know you did not say it, but later on the first page someone said "This will not solve the deficit" which is obviously true, but it is a red herring. The issue is funding a public radio/TV station, not eliminating the deficit.
One of the biggest reasons is that they don't have commercials and thus are not influenced by large corporations. Also, not every area in the U.S. has the propulation to support commercial radio - they have PBS to keep them informed. Ironically, these areas are more than likely conservative and without funding these small NPR stations would go dark.
NPR helps support our democracy and I think the better question would be "Why shouldn't we support them?" All freedom loving countries have government sponsored radio.
 
You know, I can't help but wonder why Federal funding for public broadcasting wasn't eliminated during Bush's time in office, when he had 6 years with a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and suddenly now the Republicans have a hard-on for getting rid of it.

Could it be that this is nothing more than political posturing, something not sincerely felt, an empty threat designed to put the Democrats in the position of being forced to sacrifice something they value less?
 
Back
Top Bottom