House votes to defund NPR

[archibaldcrane]

Bert and Ernie.

The original log cabin Republicans.

[pohibaba]

You're forced to pay for a lot of things via taxes. This particular thing is actually useful.

Libertarians, get out

1) They were talking about defunding NPR long before this sting operation.

2) I suggested that it was a good idea because I think it would HELP NPR, not because I wanted to hurt them.

3) I forgot, you're not allowed to challenge Kuya's warped agendas or he'll go all YOU MAD! on your ass.

[Kuya]

Nothing you just said changed the point of this issue.

They want to defund NPR because they're just jackasses. You agree with this regardless of the circumstance because that jives with what you believe in (taxes bad, capitalism good). That you think it would help NPR is essentially mental gymnastics because ultimately, you're probably more concerned with not funding a public institutition that you don't consider vital because you're a libertarian.

Status remains quo.

[Demosthenes11]

Well, he really hates palestinians.

his name is wiener and he has a big nose.

expected.

[Kuya]

Basically, the point i am making is that you are very cynical because you don't seem to care that the means and intentions are vile because the end result is basically what you agree with: Not funding with taxes public institutions that aren't necessary (you're probably not one of those even crazier libertarians who are boderline anarquists). You also don't seem to care of the absurdity and inherent unfairness of the situation, that is, that something like NPR get defunded while money just keeps funneling towards Afghanistan and Israel (both things you probably disagree with anyway).

The rignt thing to do is this: Denounce this, because even though you in theory agree with not using taxes without strict justifications, you realize that is not the reason republicans are doing this, and that it is unfair that NPR should get defunded while much worser things are allowed to continue. It's called having perspestive.

[Kuya]

Basically, Ron Paul's position.

[Niiro]

The enthusiastic "kudos" at the end of Wiener's speech reminded me so much of Jon Stewart, the whole thing could have been a Daily Show bit.

Also as much as I love it when Ron Paul puts forth an excellent speech or proposal like this one, it just pains me that much more when I remember it's probably going to be ignored.

[Correction]

Best part is when next week's Car Talk will most likely use part of Wiener's speech. They're really self-deprecating like that. :D

[Gwynplaine]

Basically, the point i am making is that you are very cynical because you don't seem to care that the means and intentions are vile because the end result is basically what you agree with

Cynical is assuming people are unwilling to voluntarily fund NPR or PBS shows they deem worthy of their money. Quoting from this article "Just as "most Americans" cannot rightly prevent an individual from speaking, so the majority ought not force individuals to finance speech against their will. Elmo does not need a bandit's mask, he needs freedom from political meddling."

[archibaldcrane]

Politicians were meddling with Elmo?

[Correction]

majority ought not force individuals to finance speech against their will.

Mental gymnastics

[Kuya]

Cynical is assuming people are unwilling to voluntarily fund NPR or PBS shows they deem worthy of their money. Quoting from this article "Just as "most Americans" cannot rightly prevent an individual from speaking, so the majority ought not force individuals to finance speech against their will. Elmo does not need a bandit's mask, he needs freedom from political meddling."

Voluntary donations, taxes, government intervention, blah blah blah, motherfucker i don't give a fuck.

[finitek]

Politicians were meddling with Elmo?

seems they won't be happy until Elmo tells the kiddies to buy a dog, buy a gun, buy American, and oh yeah kids unions are bad... oh wait almost forgot! Gay people are the devil! mmmmkay!

[aurik]

Voluntary donations, taxes, government intervention, blah blah blah, motherfucker i don't give a fuck.

Isn't it fun when someone comes here with an argument that you decisively dismantled just a page ago?

[pahnphoenix]

Isn't it fun when someone comes here with an argument that you decisively dismantled just a page ago?

welcome to the sad truth of arguing on the internet with anyone besides friends of yours or the 1% of the population who don't get immediately butthurt at the very thought that they might someday be wrong about something.

[Kuya]

I just wish these people could speak in a way that didn't submit me to a wave of jargons and buzzwords. I am very tired of that.

welcome to the sad truth of arguing on the internet with anyone besides friends of yours or the 1% of the population who don't get immediately butthurt at the very thought that they might someday be wrong about something.

I don't think you understood what he was referring to.

[pahnphoenix]

I just wish these people could speak in a way that didn't submit me to a wave of jargons and buzzwords. I am very tired of that.

I don't think you understood what he was referring to.

you are incorrect.

[Kuya]

Well, he's talking about people who are stupid, and you are talking about people who are butthurt.

[MaachaQ]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...-federal-funds

"Two percent of NPR's revenue comes through competitive grants from federal agencies — in the commerce and education departments, for example. But [NPR] member station fees make up another 40 percent of revenue. And the House bill would bar stations from using any federal funds for NPR.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=134614181

NPR received almost $5 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2010. In that year its revenues also included $2.8 million in dues and $63 million in programming fees from local stations, its largest single source of revenue. Under the bill, stations would still be allowed to buy NPR programs using private funds and use federal funds to produce their own programs.

The move to curtail federal subsidies for NPR follows a House vote last month, as part of the GOP plan to cut federal spending for the remainder of this budget year, to take back some $86 million budgeted for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the parent organization of NPR. That proposal, which also faces opposition in the Senate, eliminates $430 million in planned future spending for CPB.

This bill will hurt local stations a whole lot more than it will hurt NPR itself, as many (most) don't have the capacity to produce enough of their own programming, and said programming would not have a broad enough appeal for many people to listen. NPR and the money given to local stations for NPR programs are such a tiny part of the budget that it's stupid to talk about cutting funds for it if it's not simply a political move. $5 million won't even pay for half a modern jet fighter, $86 million would pay for, what, 1 day in Iraq/Afganistan?; it could help pay some teachers better, but no way in hell that would happen. I bet the funding they would take away from NPR would go into some big corporation's pocket anyway.

Sure NPR might be left leaning, but they are far more fair than the leading right leaning programs. I have lived outside the US for several years now, but I still donate to my old local public radio station and download podcast of many NPR programs.

[pahnphoenix]

Well, he's talking about people who are stupid, and you are talking about people who are butthurt.

6 in 1, half dozen in the other. most arguments involve at least one side making giant errors impossible to account for unless you consider emotion (ie butthurt). if people made the kind of thinking errors in the non-confrontational aspects of their lives that they do in argument (especially online argument in multi-page threads), you would seriously worry about their health / mental state.

do you understand? most argument errors are as blaring and grievous as forgetting how doorknobs work, or leaving your food in the oven indefinitely. also, when someone comes in and makes an argument that has already been covered earlier, you know you're not dealing with a very serious, rigorous thinker.

speaking of serious, rigorous thinkers, i notice that every time you respond to me you demonstrate some sort of basic reading comprehension problem. i can't tell if it's because you're used to people agreeing with you in a certain way or disagreeing with you or something, but if i recall (which is a big if), i've only ever really said non-contentious things to you, and you've usually argued with them. c'est la vie, we can't all be communication superheroes like me.