• 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
I'd consider public media to be "socialistic", which is good as it benefits those who are trying to escape poverty.
Those mired in a poor state will benefit very little as they prefer garbage(commercial) TV and entertainment...
Why do the conservatives fear NPR so ?
That the people may learn the truth ?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
So now you're comparing pornography -- which legally can't be played on the public airwaves -- to news programming.

Congratulations on raising the bar on this discussion. :lol:
Click to expand...

No, I'm using an extreme example to prove a point. I put something on the TV that many feel is objectionable (of course there will be stronger feelings toward this than biased news reporting). IT does not matter if there is far more universally accepted programming. The hour of XXX is going to cause outrage, and for good reason.
 
Where exactly do people expect to start at when anytime someone proposes a damn cut anymore it always gets the excuse "it's minimal to the budget". If you're so damn supportive of the thing make a damn donation.
 
DontDoIt said:
Where exactly do people expect to start at when anytime someone proposes a damn cut anymore it always gets the excuse "it's minimal to the budget". If you're so damn supportive of the thing make a damn donation.
Click to expand...

Well and the argument kinda works either way (which implies its mootness doesn't it?) as you can easily say:

Since the amount the government funds PRI is such a small amount of PRI's total budget, then wheres the problem with the idea that we can save the government money and let the private sector take up the slack.
 
Thus the point for me is:

We need to save money as a government MUCH more than we need to give PRI the small amount of it's budget we give it.

It is important for our children that we don't spend money we don't have.

Even if it is on Big Bird. He could use a bit less seed anyway by the looks of him.
 
DontDoIt said:
Where exactly do people expect to start at when anytime someone proposes a damn cut anymore it always gets the excuse "it's minimal to the budget". If you're so damn supportive of the thing make a damn donation.
Click to expand...

You have to take into account the liberal mind numb mind........and the fact that they cant even bring themselves to cut a cowboy poetry contest......much less the funding for DNC TV/RADIO. Its like the Democrat voter facing foreclosure when Obama didnt pay her mortgage.......who insists on paying $300 to Dish Network and $100 to Sirius.

Libtards will claim that cutting (insert any number) million isnt significant....or billion....and it should be the big budget items that receive a trimming.

.........of course to even whisper about cutting the wellstones of Social Security or Medicare gurantees the loudest collective whine audible to the human ear......from Democrats across the country. They cant cut anything, and they cant stop inventing new ways to spend money.....all Democrat roads lead to Bankruptcy, USA and only Bankruptcy, USA.
.
.
.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Since I can't do that, I'm sticking with the fact that it does what it is supposed to do, and as such should be left the heck alone. :)
Click to expand...

Example #3,345: They cant even cut a cowboy poetry contest
.
.
.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
No, I'm using an extreme example to prove a point. I put something on the TV that many feel is objectionable (of course there will be stronger feelings toward this than biased news reporting). IT does not matter if there is far more universally accepted programming. The hour of XXX is going to cause outrage, and for good reason.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to take you seriously when you compare pornography to news programming.
 
DontDoIt said:
Where exactly do people expect to start at when anytime someone proposes a damn cut anymore it always gets the excuse "it's minimal to the budget". If you're so damn supportive of the thing make a damn donation.
Click to expand...

If I could, I would. Back before I had a wife and two kids to support, I did donate.

ETA: If you're serious about making meaningful budget cuts, you start with bigger pieces of the pie. Public broadcasting funding is something like 0.002% of the Federal budget.
 
Last edited:
Badmutha said:
Example #3,345: They cant even cut a cowboy poetry contest
Click to expand...

Lol_wut_shoop.png
 
I think its okay to have some calm news programming that has no problem hosting opposing viewpoints and giving both equal time. A large percentage of news and political programming is of the lowest common denominator type: we are good, they are bad. This brings in a lot of viewers/listeners, because your average member of the average audience can understand this pandering sensationalism.

Anyway, how many of the people here who oppose NPR and PBS funding are for the Libya operation? Public programming is a pittance not worth considering, but Libya costs us $100 million dollars a day. Your priorities are upside down.

NationalJournal.com - Costs of Libya Operation Already Piling Up - Monday, March 21, 2011
 
You know, people are bitching about NPR and PBS; but the missile attack we had on today was worth 33 years of NPR funding. So people want to bitch, get **** in perspective.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I'm not going to take you seriously when you compare pornography to news programming.
Click to expand...

I intentionally used an extreme example, which is a common debate tactic. Of course I do not put them at the same level. That would be ridiculous, but people will be ideologically opposed to them both. Again, I am a fan of NPR's news programs.
 
Last edited:
tryreading said:
I think its okay to have some calm news programming that has no problem hosting opposing viewpoints and giving both equal time.
Click to expand...

....and I think its okay to have you and your fellow Democrats pay for it. Try using your wallet for once.....mine needs a break.....thanks!
.
.
.
.
 
Ikari said:
You know, people are bitching about NPR and PBS; but the missile attack we had on today was worth 33 years of NPR funding. So people want to bitch, get **** in perspective.
Click to expand...

A libertarian in support of NPR.......like spotting Big Foot.....or the elusive Blue Dog Democrat......
.
.
.
 
Badmutha said:
A libertarian in support of NPR.......like spotting Big Foot.....or the elusive Blue Dog Democrat......
.
.
.
Click to expand...

It's not that I'm in "support" of it, it's just that there are so many bigger fish to fry. When NPR is seriously one of my top concerns, we will be in a GOOD place.
 
Ikari said:
It's not that I'm in "support" of it, it's just that there are so many bigger fish to fry. When NPR is seriously one of my top concerns, we will be in a GOOD place.
Click to expand...

$14,000,000,000,000.00.......

Its well past time to put the big and small fish in the pan......
.
.
.
 
Ikari said:
It's not that I'm in "support" of it, it's just that there are so many bigger fish to fry. When NPR is seriously one of my top concerns, we will be in a GOOD place.
Click to expand...
You miss the point. Yes, there are bigger fish that have to be fried, but how are we ever going to do that if we're not even willing to cut the small, clearly nonessential stuff?
 
DontDoIt said:
Where exactly do people expect to start at when anytime someone proposes a damn cut anymore it always gets the excuse "it's minimal to the budget". If you're so damn supportive of the thing make a damn donation.
Click to expand...

...as I posted before, if I asked one of my managers to cut $100,000 out of his budget and his first action is to make a fuss of a $12 item, I think I have an incompetant manager. ($12/$100,000 is the same ratio as $7.5M to $61B... or 1/100 of 1%). Anyone that thinks the conservative attack on NPR has anything to do with the budget.... well, they are as gullible as they come. The real issue is all of this is an incredible ruse, and the republicans have no interest in expenditure cutting (most of them think we should be in Libya, which if you believed them weeks ago, would be something we could not afford), they are just up to there usual, pointless games.
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
If I could, I would. Back before I had a wife and two kids to support, I did donate.

ETA: If you're serious about making meaningful budget cuts, you start with bigger pieces of the pie. Public broadcasting funding is something like 0.002% of the Federal budget.
Click to expand...
Well hats off to you for putting your money where your mouth is.

Yes, I will agree, but little things add up.
 
Badmutha said:
A libertarian in support of NPR.......like spotting Big Foot.....or the elusive Blue Dog Democrat......
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Support of taxpayer funded (ie, collected under threat of violence) radio is not a libertarian position. People claiming to be libertarian who support such frivolous use of someone else's tax dollars aren't good libertarians.
 
X Factor said:
You miss the point. Yes, there are bigger fish that have to be fried, but how are we ever going to do that if we're not even willing to cut the small, clearly nonessential stuff?
Click to expand...

The funny thing is their pet environmentalists won't let them cut down all the trees they're going to need to print all the money they're going to have print to pay for all the programs they insist we can't live without that we lived without before they were implemented.
 
Badmutha said:
....and I think its okay to have you and your fellow Democrats pay for it. Try using your wallet for once.....mine needs a break.....thanks!
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Okay, no problem. And you pay for the things you agree with. If those are Iraq and Libya, for example, your wallet will empty fast, but for me, NPR and PBS will grow my brain for cheap, cheap. I win.
 
X Factor said:
You miss the point. Yes, there are bigger fish that have to be fried, but how are we ever going to do that if we're not even willing to cut the small, clearly nonessential stuff?
Click to expand...

No, you miss the point. What's the point of having a fight over public broadcasting when it's like 0.002% of the budget while we're hemorrhaging money elsewhere?

In other words, why expend the mental energy and political capital on something so small compared to other much larger budget items?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom