Why Public Broadcasting Must Go
Irie
Another Great Speech - CPB
David Boaz - Cato Institute
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Inouye. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide a little diversity on this table and to explain why I
think taxpayer funding for the Corporation for pubic broadcasting should be
eliminated. I'll touch briefly on several arguments in my oral discussion,
and I'll save my most important for last.
First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress and
the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to cut
non-essential spending. In a world of 500 channels and the World Wide Web,
government funded radio and television networks are non-essential.
Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
In talking with their advertisers however, they're more candid. The
audiences for PBS and NPR are the best educated, most profession, and
richest ardencies in broadcasting. Their cultural programming reflects elite
tastes, and I like a lot of it myself. But I think we, the upper middle
class people should pay for our own arts and entertainment.
Third, NPR and PBS can survive privatization. As they often remind us, they
get only get 15% of their revenue from the federal government. Mr. Chairman,
family and businesses in Pennsylvania often deal with 15% losses in their
income. It is not fun, but they do it. The 2.5 billion dollar Public
broadcasting complex can survive and prosper without federal tax dollars.
Fourth, in news and public affairs programming, bias is evitable. Any
reporter or editor has to choose what's important. It is impossible to make
such decisions with out a framework, a perspective, a view on how the world
works.
A careful listener to NPR would notice a preponderance of reports on racism
sexism and environmental destruction. Reflecting a particular perspective of
what is most important in our world.
David Fanny, the Executive producer of PBS's Frontline responds of questions
of bias by saying, "we ask hard questions to people in power. This is an
aphemia to people in Washington these days." [End quote]
But there has never, been a Frontline documentary on the burden of taxes, or
the number of people have died because federal regulations have kept drugs
off of the market, or the way the states government have abused the rule of
law for their pursuit of tobacco companies, or the number or people who use
guns to prevent crime.
Those hard questions just don't occur to a liberal journalist.
Anyone who got all his news from NPR would never know, that Americans of all
races live longer, healthier, and in more comfort than ever before in
history, or that the environment is getting steadily cleaner.
And that brings me to my major concern. We would not want the federal
government to publish a national newspaper. Neither should have a government
television Network and government radio network.
If anything should be kept separate from government and politics, it is the
news and public affairs programming that informs American's about government
and its policies.
When government brings us the news, with all of the enviable bias and spin,
the government is putting its thumb on the scales pf democracy. Journalist
should not work for the government. Journalist should not have officials at
the government looking over their shoulders, and taxpayers should not be
forced to subsidies news and public affairs programming.
Therefore, I urge you not merely to reduce, but to eliminate taxpayer
funding for public broadcasting.
Now even if this committee comes to my conclusion that tax payer funding for
radio and television networks is imprudent and constitutionally unfounded; I
recognize that you may hesitate to withdraw a funding stream that station
count on.
Even though that federal funding is only about 15% of public broadcasting
revenues, you might choose to phase out the funding, perhaps on a five-year
schedule.
The total funding request for this year is 500 million dollars. If congress
could reduce it by 100 million dollars a year, leaving the CPB entirely free
of federal taxpayer funding and of federal intervention in what journalist
do at the end of five years.
Thank you for your attention senators.
________________
Mr. Boaz is 100% correct.
Irie
--
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Stop voting for the lesser of two evils: http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
The great debate is at: http://www.irieepistemology.com/
DC Madman
wrote:
>http://www.irieepistemology.com/Speeches/David%20Boaz/index.htm
>
>Another Great Speech - CPB
>
>David Boaz - Cato Institute
>
>Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Inouye. Thank you for the
>opportunity to provide a little diversity on this table and to explain why I
>think taxpayer funding for the Corporation for pubic broadcasting should be
>eliminated. I'll touch briefly on several arguments in my oral discussion,
>and I'll save my most important for last.
>
>First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress and
>the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to cut
>non-essential spending. In a world of 500 channels and the World Wide Web,
>government funded radio and television networks are non-essential.
What a load of horseshit. How many 'pugnuts have internet access and
a spare $100 bucks a month to get those 500 channels. The only reason
I'm a recovered conservative is I have the spare cash for access to
somethinig other than the conservative media and have access to the
truth..
>
>Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
Public broadcasting is a drop in the bucket compared to the welfare
for the rich Shrub has provided (offshore businesses, tax cuts for the
wealthy, deregulation...),
>In talking with their advertisers however, they're more candid. The
>audiences for PBS and NPR are the best educated, most profession, and
>richest ardencies in broadcasting. Their cultural programming reflects elite
>tastes, and I like a lot of it myself. But I think we, the upper middle
>class people should pay for our own arts and entertainment.
Perhaps they are the only ones smart enough to see through the sea of
bullshit on broadcast TV and find PBS the only thing worth watching.
>
>Third, NPR and PBS can survive privatization. As they often remind us, they
>get only get 15% of their revenue from the federal government. Mr. Chairman,
>family and businesses in Pennsylvania often deal with 15% losses in their
>income. It is not fun, but they do it. The 2.5 billion dollar Public
>broadcasting complex can survive and prosper without federal tax dollars.
Yeah privatization and deregulation are good things, they bring us
things like Enron, the east coast blackout, and lots of fun to watch
"perp walks"
>
>Fourth, in news and public affairs programming, bias is evitable. Any
>reporter or editor has to choose what's important. It is impossible to make
>such decisions with out a framework, a perspective, a view on how the world
>works.
Gotta make PBS and NPR toe the line and join the rest of the
conservative media.
>
>A careful listener to NPR would notice a preponderance of reports on racism
>sexism and environmental destruction. Reflecting a particular perspective of
>what is most important in our world.
Those 'pugnuts really despise the truth
>
>David Fanny, the Executive producer of PBS's Frontline responds of questions
>of bias by saying, "we ask hard questions to people in power. This is an
>aphemia to people in Washington these days." [End quote]
Do 'pugnuts make up words as they speak? What the fuck is aphemia?
>
>But there has never, been a Frontline documentary on the burden of taxes, or
>the number of people have died because federal regulations have kept drugs
>off of the market, or the way the states government have abused the rule of
>law for their pursuit of tobacco companies, or the number or people who use
>guns to prevent crime.
Yup, those cops use guns and prevent crime, I'll have to agree
>
>Those hard questions just don't occur to a liberal journalist.
Kind of hard to call speculation news. I guess PBS should try to pass
of punditry and speculation as news like FAUX. Damn taxes, we don't
need no stinking roads, police, firemen, schools, military....
Everybody knows tobacco is good for you and the FDA always approves
quality drugs like fen-fen, vioxx and the like.
>
>Anyone who got all his news from NPR would never know, that Americans of all
>races live longer, healthier, and in more comfort than ever before in
>history, or that the environment is getting steadily cleaner.
Yep, the dirty skies initiative, no tree left behind. Credit card
companies let most anyone and their dog live in luxury. Hey retirees
don't really need their pensions or healthcare promised from the
employers that guaranteed them
>
>And that brings me to my major concern. We would not want the federal
>government to publish a national newspaper. Neither should have a government
>television Network and government radio network.
Unless it spouts conservative propaganda.
>
>If anything should be kept separate from government and politics, it is the
>news and public affairs programming that informs American's about government
>and its policies.
That pretty much summarizes what Public Broadcasting is supposed to
be, separated from government and politics.
>
>When government brings us the news, with all of the enviable bias and spin,
>the government is putting its thumb on the scales pf democracy. Journalist
>should not work for the government. Journalist should not have officials at
>the government looking over their shoulders, and taxpayers should not be
>forced to subsidies news and public affairs programming.
Is he saying FOX news must go?
>
>Therefore, I urge you not merely to reduce, but to eliminate taxpayer
>funding for public broadcasting.
Would me saying, "Go fuck yourself" be too harsh?
>
>Now even if this committee comes to my conclusion that tax payer funding for
>radio and television networks is imprudent and constitutionally unfounded; I
>recognize that you may hesitate to withdraw a funding stream that station
>count on.
Since when did the Constitution matter to these fucks?
>
>Even though that federal funding is only about 15% of public broadcasting
>revenues, you might choose to phase out the funding, perhaps on a five-year
>schedule.
>The total funding request for this year is 500 million dollars. If congress
>could reduce it by 100 million dollars a year, leaving the CPB entirely free
>of federal taxpayer funding and of federal intervention in what journalist
>do at the end of five years.
Perhaps if we reduced the money spent on the military by a fart in a
bucket we could increase the Public Broadcasting budget.
>
>Thank you for your attention senators.
>
>________________
>
>Mr. Boaz is 100% correct.
Mr. Boaz is 100% full of shit
>
>Irie
>--
>The heathen back there, pound the wall.
So sayeth the DC Madman
Roger
news:eNGCe.56226$FP2.34116@lakeread03...
> http://www.irieepistemology.com/Speeches/David%20Boaz/index.htm
>
> Another Great Speech - CPB
>
> David Boaz - Cato Institute
>
> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Inouye. Thank you for
> the opportunity to provide a little diversity on this table and to explain
> why I think taxpayer funding for the Corporation for pubic broadcasting
> should be eliminated. I'll touch briefly on several arguments in my oral
> discussion, and I'll save my most important for last.
>
> First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress
> and the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to
> cut non-essential spending. In a world of 500 channels and the World Wide
> Web, government funded radio and television networks are non-essential.
$1 per person per year.
>
> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
The rich have cable.
The poor have broadcast TV.
Screem Mashine
sponsors.
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:eNGCe.56226$FP2.34116@lakeread03...
Political Pagan
news:eNGCe.56226$FP2.34116@lakeread03:
> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
PBS, a channel for children that the poor can still watch with an old TV
antenna instead of paying $70 a month they don't have for cable TV.
--
"It's interesting. I see all these political ads and all these
commentators say it's our job as Americans to vote. Let me tell
you something, with Bush in charge of the economy, this might
be the only job you have all year." -Jay Leno
Conservative Ideals
--
Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
http://jaredp.blogspot.com/
"Political Pagan" <pooki...@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns96971AEFE2A9Cpo...@69.28.186.121...
> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in
> news:eNGCe.56226$FP2.34116@lakeread03:
>
>> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>
> PBS, a channel for children that the poor can still watch with an old TV
> antenna instead of paying $70 a month they don't have for cable TV.
And yet, many poor families in fact do pay for cable, and cell phones, and
relatively new cars (but not the insurance that goes along with it). Go
figure.
PagCal
of taking it over - mentally. Already, you're starting to see 'their'
view of the 'dummed down' world starting to pop up here and there.
For example, The Newshour lead off the the Jackson trial results one
day, instead of what's happening in CAFTA.
Joe S.
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:eNGCe.56226$FP2.34116@lakeread03...
>
> Another Great Speech - CPB
>
> David Boaz - Cato Institute
>
tank -- snipped. ]
Only the rich care for PBS?
Obviously this clown has never been to the coalfields of West Virginia and
Kentucky where for many communities, NPR is the only radio station they
have.
--
-----
Joe S.
ZenIsWhen
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:eNGCe.56226$FP2.34116@lakeread03...
>
> Another Great Speech - CPB
>
> David Boaz - Cato Institute
Ah. the Reich wing (non) think - propaganda organization spreads more crap
................. get out the large waders!
>
> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Inouye. Thank you for
> the opportunity to provide a little diversity on this table and to explain
> why I think taxpayer funding for the Corporation for pubic broadcasting
> should be eliminated. I'll touch briefly on several arguments in my oral
> discussion, and I'll save my most important for last.
Notice - they've been labled arguments, and not statements of fact or
evidence!
>
> First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress
> and the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to
> cut non-essential spending. In a world of 500 channels and the World Wide
> Web, government funded radio and television networks are non-essential.
The deficit is due to REPUBLICAN SPENDING on a non-essential, fraudulent
war - and GIVING money to corrupt corporations and whitre elephant military
programs.
>
> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
WHAT?
ALL Bush republican polcies are welfare for the rich - but we're just going
to ignore them because they are conservative republican financial
supporters; and we'll (hypocritically) attack PBS - NOT because it's
liberal - but because it tells the TRUTH - which republican right wing
conservatives CANNOT STAND!
This is nothing more than the same old propaganda, bull shit, lies that the
Nazi-Republicans used to smear ALL liberals, ALL news media organizations,
war veterans, and even other (non right wing fanatical) republicans.
XTS
"ZenIsWhen" <here'sloo...@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:11dmsg9...@corp.supernews.com...
the truth to the people. If it isn't their version, they want it surpressed,
gagged, muzzeld, or murdered. They want censorship, or complete compliance
like the bastards in the MSM who are now nothing more than high paid script
readers for the Whitehouse/Pentagon propaganda machines.
Or, maybe it's because PBS does not run military recruitment adds every five
fuckin prime time minutes.
Maybe they think it will boost Fox Fake Fuckin news if they take out PBS.
PBS is a bastion of the common man. As far as cable goes, there are people
who can afford it, but will not allow it in their homes. Some people think
100 channles of bullshit is 100 to many, and I dont blame them.
What, is watching "Everybody Fucks Raymond," more important to our children
than "Sesame Street"? Do our kids learn more watching "American Fuckin
Idol"?
BULLSHIT!
The republicans open the door for oraganized crime and extortion every time
they take power.
The republicans hate anything good, decent or benificial to the common man,
and they especially hate the poor.
They talk about values. I dont want my grandchildren to have republican
values, or emulate GW Bush, Jesus Christ, they would be mass murderers,
theives and liars on a republicans information diet.
Their godamn tax cuts for the ultra rich, privatization and deregulation is
sickening, and now they want to go after Public Broadcasting. Hell, It's
been all over the news that they have already infiltrated it, with a liar,
and a republican shill.
Who in the hell do they think they are kidding, Other than their own brain
dead cult of ditto head assholes? That's no challenge, these morons could be
fooled into believing the sky is falling if limbaugh tells them to duck.
Then these assholes come here, spread totally stupid proaganda like this
particular asshole named IRIE, and tell us how great and informative it is.
HEY IRIE GO FUCK YOURSELF, and do it with WITH DICK CHENEYS BLESSING.
Then shove a cable TV wire up your stupid ass. But leave PBS alone
dickhead. I'll pay your share.
kstahl
A rather ignorant and uninformed opinion. Taxpayer dollars
only make up an extremely small percentage of public radio.
The figures are quite public and can be researched by anyone
with google. Republicans just want to use this as a red
herring even though people who are actually knowledgeable
about the subject know the truth.
--
Blogging at http://HexagonalPeg.blogspot.com
Nog
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:eNGCe.56226$FP2.34116@lakeread03...
It's going to go anyway with those REALLY STUPID Emergency Alert System
bullshit messages that block regular programing. A docementary's content is
completely destroyed by those inturruptions. I have seen 3 inturruptions in
one show just because of a fucking thunderstorm. What is wrong with these
people? The last vestige of commercial free television viewing now fucked
with stupid weather messages. Thank the Stupid FCC and the pussey Government
Bullshit office. My TV is on the window ledge ready to hit the ground.
It MIGHT be tolerable IF they paused the program while the bullshit is
flowing.
Irie
"DC Madman" <mis...@whidbey.net> wrote in message
news:72fmd1dji3sm4g7j4...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 01:06:29 -0400, "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.irieepistemology.com/Speeches/David%20Boaz/index.htm
>>
>>Another Great Speech - CPB
>>
>>David Boaz - Cato Institute
>>
>>Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Inouye. Thank you for
>>the
>>opportunity to provide a little diversity on this table and to explain why
>>I
>>think taxpayer funding for the Corporation for pubic broadcasting should
>>be
>>eliminated. I'll touch briefly on several arguments in my oral discussion,
>>and I'll save my most important for last.
>>
>>First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress
>>and
>>the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to cut
>>non-essential spending. In a world of 500 channels and the World Wide Web,
>>government funded radio and television networks are non-essential.
>
> What a load of horseshit. How many 'pugnuts have internet access and
> a spare $100 bucks a month to get those 500 channels. The only reason
> I'm a recovered conservative is I have the spare cash for access to
> somethinig other than the conservative media and have access to the
> truth..
Most people who listen to NPR can afford it. See fact #2.
>>
>>Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>>defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>>Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>
> Public broadcasting is a drop in the bucket compared to the welfare
> for the rich Shrub has provided (offshore businesses, tax cuts for the
> wealthy, deregulation...),
The same tax breaks given to these companies are given the CPB, but they
also get 15% of their expenses paid by the taxpayer whether they like it or
not. Would you be okay if we were to do that with Fox News as well????
>
>>In talking with their advertisers however, they're more candid. The
>>audiences for PBS and NPR are the best educated, most profession, and
>>richest ardencies in broadcasting. Their cultural programming reflects
>>elite
>>tastes, and I like a lot of it myself. But I think we, the upper middle
>>class people should pay for our own arts and entertainment.
>
> Perhaps they are the only ones smart enough to see through the sea of
> bullshit on broadcast TV and find PBS the only thing worth watching.
Okay, then they can support it. Why should we be forced to support it?
>>
>>Third, NPR and PBS can survive privatization. As they often remind us,
>>they
>>get only get 15% of their revenue from the federal government. Mr.
>>Chairman,
>>family and businesses in Pennsylvania often deal with 15% losses in their
>>income. It is not fun, but they do it. The 2.5 billion dollar Public
>>broadcasting complex can survive and prosper without federal tax dollars.
>
> Yeah privatization and deregulation are good things, they bring us
> things like Enron, the east coast blackout, and lots of fun to watch
> "perp walks"
So you believe that the government is more trustworthy than private
enterprise?
>>
>>Fourth, in news and public affairs programming, bias is evitable. Any
>>reporter or editor has to choose what's important. It is impossible to
>>make
>>such decisions with out a framework, a perspective, a view on how the
>>world
>>works.
>
> Gotta make PBS and NPR toe the line and join the rest of the
> conservative media.
They can do anything they wish. Why should we be forced to pay for it DC?
>>
>>A careful listener to NPR would notice a preponderance of reports on
>>racism
>>sexism and environmental destruction. Reflecting a particular perspective
>>of
>>what is most important in our world.
>
> Those 'pugnuts really despise the truth
Is this not a particular perspective? Do you believe that there is only one
perspective in the world, DC?
>>
>>David Fanny, the Executive producer of PBS's Frontline responds of
>>questions
>>of bias by saying, "we ask hard questions to people in power. This is an
>>aphemia to people in Washington these days." [End quote]
>
> Do 'pugnuts make up words as they speak? What the fuck is aphemia?
>
Look it up. LOL, you can use a dictionary, can you not?
>>
>>But there has never, been a Frontline documentary on the burden of taxes,
>>or
>>the number of people have died because federal regulations have kept drugs
>>off of the market, or the way the states government have abused the rule
>>of
>>law for their pursuit of tobacco companies, or the number or people who
>>use
>>guns to prevent crime.
>
> Yup, those cops use guns and prevent crime, I'll have to agree
>
Kewl.
>>
>>Those hard questions just don't occur to a liberal journalist.
>
> Kind of hard to call speculation news. I guess PBS should try to pass
> of punditry and speculation as news like FAUX. Damn taxes, we don't
> need no stinking roads, police, firemen, schools, military....
> Everybody knows tobacco is good for you and the FDA always approves
> quality drugs like fen-fen, vioxx and the like.
At least with Faux News we are not force to pay 15% of their expenses. I'd
have a problem with that as well. And ask yourself how well the FDA has
done with approving drugs like Vioxx and Fen Fen and then try to rationalize
public funding for news, DC.
>>
>>Anyone who got all his news from NPR would never know, that Americans of
>>all
>>races live longer, healthier, and in more comfort than ever before in
>>history, or that the environment is getting steadily cleaner.
>
> Yep, the dirty skies initiative, no tree left behind. Credit card
> companies let most anyone and their dog live in luxury. Hey retirees
> don't really need their pensions or healthcare promised from the
> employers that guaranteed them
What does that have to do with anything? You think the government is run
any better???
>>
>>And that brings me to my major concern. We would not want the federal
>>government to publish a national newspaper. Neither should have a
>>government
>>television Network and government radio network.
>
> Unless it spouts conservative propaganda.
Wrong. Read and comprehend, DC.
>>
>>If anything should be kept separate from government and politics, it is
>>the
>>news and public affairs programming that informs American's about
>>government
>>and its policies.
>
> That pretty much summarizes what Public Broadcasting is supposed to
> be, separated from government and politics.
Except it's not. Get it now?
>>
>>When government brings us the news, with all of the enviable bias and
>>spin,
>>the government is putting its thumb on the scales pf democracy. Journalist
>>should not work for the government. Journalist should not have officials
>>at
>>the government looking over their shoulders, and taxpayers should not be
>>forced to subsidies news and public affairs programming.
>
> Is he saying FOX news must go?
Are you saying Fox News gets a government subsidy like that of the CPB?
Please cite proof.
>>
>>Therefore, I urge you not merely to reduce, but to eliminate taxpayer
>>funding for public broadcasting.
>
> Would me saying, "Go fuck yourself" be too harsh?
Why would you say that?
>>
>>Now even if this committee comes to my conclusion that tax payer funding
>>for
>>radio and television networks is imprudent and constitutionally unfounded;
>>I
>>recognize that you may hesitate to withdraw a funding stream that station
>>count on.
>
> Since when did the Constitution matter to these fucks?
Where in the Constitution does it say we should be forced to pay for radio
and TV, DC?
>>
>>Even though that federal funding is only about 15% of public broadcasting
>>revenues, you might choose to phase out the funding, perhaps on a
>>five-year
>>schedule.
>>The total funding request for this year is 500 million dollars. If
>>congress
>>could reduce it by 100 million dollars a year, leaving the CPB entirely
>>free
>>of federal taxpayer funding and of federal intervention in what journalist
>>do at the end of five years.
>
> Perhaps if we reduced the money spent on the military by a fart in a
> bucket we could increase the Public Broadcasting budget.
So you don't think the government should fund national security?
>>
>>Thank you for your attention senators.
>>
>>________________
>>
>>Mr. Boaz is 100% correct.
>
> Mr. Boaz is 100% full of shit
>>
How so?
Irie
--
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Stop voting for the lesser of two evils: http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
The great debate is at: www.IrieEpistemology.com
Irie
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vtICe.4403$_%4....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
> news:eNGCe.56226$FP2.34116@lakeread03...
>> http://www.irieepistemology.com/Speeches/David%20Boaz/index.htm
>>
>> Another Great Speech - CPB
>>
>> David Boaz - Cato Institute
>>
>> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Inouye. Thank you for
>> the opportunity to provide a little diversity on this table and to
>> explain why I think taxpayer funding for the Corporation for pubic
>> broadcasting should be eliminated. I'll touch briefly on several
>> arguments in my oral discussion, and I'll save my most important for
>> last.
>>
>> First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress
>> and the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to
>> cut non-essential spending. In a world of 500 channels and the World Wide
>> Web, government funded radio and television networks are non-essential.
>
> $1 per person per year.
>
So if you were forced to pay Fox News, CNN and MSNBC $1 a year, you'd be
okay with it?
>>
>> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>
> The rich have cable.
>
> The poor have broadcast TV.
>
And the rich use CPB services, not the poor.
The great debate is at: www.IrieEpistemology.com
>
>
Irie
is a sponsor and they all do the same thing. Except instead of a voluntary
arrangement, we are forced to pay for the CPB. That is wrong.
--
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Stop voting for the lesser of two evils: http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
The great debate is at: www.IrieEpistemology.com
"Screem Mashine" <sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zNICe.267213$El.101064@pd7tw1no...
Irie
"Political Pagan" <pooki...@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns96971AEFE2A9Cpo...@69.28.186.121...
> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in
> news:eNGCe.56226$FP2.34116@lakeread03:
>
>> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>
> PBS, a channel for children that the poor can still watch with an old TV
> antenna instead of paying $70 a month they don't have for cable TV.
>
>
The poor don't watch CPB programming, the rich do. Funny how you snipped
the rest of the argument so that you only had to respond to the portion you
thought you could contend. You can't be bothered responding to the entire
post, because it proves your statement above completely wrong.
And if I do not have children, why should I be forced to pay for something I
do not use? Is that fair? I want to buy a car next year, can I force you
to send me money for it?
Irie
--
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Stop voting for the lesser of two evils: http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
The great debate is at: www.IrieEpistemology.com
Irie
"Joe S." <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:dbfor...@news1.newsguy.com...
Maybe because no other company can compete when there is not a level playing
field. How would you like to subsidize Fox News or CNN?
Irie
--
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Stop voting for the lesser of two evils: http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
The great debate is at: www.IrieEpistemology.com
Irie
Constitution does it say we should be forced to pay for TV or Radio
broadcasting?
Irie
--
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Stop voting for the lesser of two evils: http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
The great debate is at: www.IrieEpistemology.com
"PagCal" <pag...@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:A72dnRE5raY...@giganews.com...
Irie
"ZenIsWhen" <here'sloo...@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:11dmsg9...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
> news:eNGCe.56226$FP2.34116@lakeread03...
>> http://www.irieepistemology.com/Speeches/David%20Boaz/index.htm
>>
>> Another Great Speech - CPB
>>
>> David Boaz - Cato Institute
>
> Ah. the Reich wing (non) think - propaganda organization spreads more crap
> ................. get out the large waders!
>
David Boaz is not right wing, he is libertarian. There is no real
difference between the right and left anymore.
>>
>> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Inouye. Thank you for
>> the opportunity to provide a little diversity on this table and to
>> explain why I think taxpayer funding for the Corporation for pubic
>> broadcasting should be eliminated. I'll touch briefly on several
>> arguments in my oral discussion, and I'll save my most important for
>> last.
>
> Notice - they've been labled arguments, and not statements of fact or
> evidence!
Everything Boaz states is fact.
>
>>
>> First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress
>> and the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to
>> cut non-essential spending. In a world of 500 channels and the World Wide
>> Web, government funded radio and television networks are non-essential.
>
> The deficit is due to REPUBLICAN SPENDING on a non-essential, fraudulent
> war - and GIVING money to corrupt corporations and
Exactly! Let's cut out all non-essential spending. The only thing
government should be tasked with doing are those things the free market
cannot produce itself. Boaz was asked to speak on this particular issue,
but the libertarian movement believes that all non-essential spending should
be eliminated, not just funding for the CPB.
> whitre elephant military programs.
So you don't think we should pay for the military?
>
>
>>
>> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>
> WHAT?
> ALL Bush republican polcies are welfare for the rich - but we're just
> going to ignore them because they are conservative republican financial
> supporters; and we'll (hypocritically) attack PBS - NOT because it's
> liberal - but because it tells the TRUTH - which republican right wing
> conservatives CANNOT STAND!
>
Again, do your homework. Boaz is a libertarian. All public funding on
non-essential programs should be cut out completely.
> This is nothing more than the same old propaganda, bull shit, lies that
> the Nazi-Republicans used to smear ALL liberals, ALL news media
> organizations, war veterans, and even other (non right wing fanatical)
> republicans.
>
Both republicans and democrats believe in big government. Bush has spent
more every year and has cut back nothing. A liberal president would do the
same. Maybe a republican would spend more on corporate welfare and a
liberal would spend more on social welfare, but it both are buying votes
with our money. It is immoral, wrong and must be stopped.
Irie
--
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Stop voting for the lesser of two evils: http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
The great debate is at: www.IrieEpistemology.com
Political Pagan
news:esSCe.56247$FP2.37028@lakeread03:
> The poor don't watch CPB programming, the rich do. Funny how you
> snipped the rest of the argument so that you only had to respond to
> the portion you thought you could contend. You can't be bothered
> responding to the entire post, because it proves your statement above
> completely wrong.
And where is your proof to back this line of bullshit up? An opinion piece
does not count as proof or facts. Go find some actual information you
fucking idiot.
Political Pagan
news:wJydnXnVQpN...@adelphia.com:
> It's going to go anyway with those REALLY STUPID Emergency Alert
> System bullshit messages that block regular programing. A
> docementary's content is completely destroyed by those inturruptions.
> I have seen 3 inturruptions in one show just because of a fucking
> thunderstorm. What is wrong with these people?
Psssssst.....
Happens on ALL CHANNELS, at least here in WI
Irie
"XTS" <x...@Xwoh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BsMCe.18963$yC5....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Both parties are "Nazi"s in the sense the want power to be contained in the
government and not the citizens. They take our money and what do they do
with it? Purchase second rate education for our children, create groups
like the FDA that give us Vioxx and Fen Fen while people die because it
takes 10 years to approve a drug, give us a social security system that
hands out scraps of money to people IF they live long enough to collect and
then use the rest of the money on their pet projects and so on. It's a
joke.
> or tell
> the truth to the people.
You actually think democrats tell the truth and republicans are the only
ones that lie???? How naive.
> If it isn't their version, they want it surpressed,
> gagged, muzzeld, or murdered. They want censorship, or complete
> compliance
> like the bastards in the MSM who are now nothing more than high paid
> script
> readers for the Whitehouse/Pentagon propaganda machines.
>
How about taking government out of the equation and let the people choose
what they want to support? Why should we be forced to pay for any of it?
> Or, maybe it's because PBS does not run military recruitment adds every
> five
> fuckin prime time minutes.
It's because we don't pay 15% of any other news organization's expense
except for the CPB programming. You are okay with that?
> Maybe they think it will boost Fox Fake Fuckin news if they take out PBS.
>
Fox News has to compete for it's revenue, just as much as CNN, MSNBC, Air
America and so on. Why should NPR get a hand out?
> PBS is a bastion of the common man.
No, it is not. Most people who listen to CPB programming are the richest
and most educated demographic in society.
> As far as cable goes, there are people
> who can afford it, but will not allow it in their homes. Some people think
> 100 channles of bullshit is 100 to many, and I dont blame them.
>
And that is the free market, people are free to choose. What if these
people were forced to pay for it, would you be okay with it? How is that
different from public funding of the CPB? A bit hypocritical.
> What, is watching "Everybody Fucks Raymond," more important to our
> children
> than "Sesame Street"? Do our kids learn more watching "American Fuckin
> Idol"?
So don't sit your kids down in front of it.
>
> BULLSHIT!
>
> The republicans open the door for oraganized crime and extortion every
> time
> they take power.
>
Same with the democrats. This is why their power has to be minimized.
> The republicans hate anything good, decent or benificial to the common
> man,
> and they especially hate the poor.
>
Whatever. Both parties couldn't care less about anything but power.
> They talk about values. I dont want my grandchildren to have republican
> values, or emulate GW Bush, Jesus Christ, they would be mass murderers,
> theives and liars on a republicans information diet.
>
People have to judge their own values and base their lives upon them.
Democrats want to be your mommy, wipe your nose and tuck you into bed; while
the republicans want to be your daddy and tell you, "this is right" and
"this is wrong". I say they should stay out of it and let us live our
lives.
> Their godamn tax cuts for the ultra rich, privatization and deregulation
> is
> sickening, and now they want to go after Public Broadcasting. Hell, It's
> been all over the news that they have already infiltrated it, with a liar,
> and a republican shill.
>
We should be able to keep the money we earn and only have to pay the
government for those things we cannot produce on our own. It is the only
fair and moral way society can work. Do you really trust the government to
run your life, XTS?
> Who in the hell do they think they are kidding, Other than their own
> brain
> dead cult of ditto head assholes? That's no challenge, these morons could
> be
> fooled into believing the sky is falling if limbaugh tells them to duck.
>
I know, so we should cut back their power as best we can.
> Then these assholes come here, spread totally stupid proaganda like this
> particular asshole named IRIE, and tell us how great and informative it
> is.
>
LOL, don't tell me - your eight and a half years old, right? Little temper
tantrum like a child.
> HEY IRIE GO FUCK YOURSELF, and do it with WITH DICK CHENEYS BLESSING.
>
> Then shove a cable TV wire up your stupid ass. But leave PBS alone
> dickhead. I'll pay your share.
>
Glad to see that you illustrated the intelligence of the liberal mind.
Thank you!
Irie
--
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Stop voting for the lesser of two evils: http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
The great debate is at: www.IrieEpistemology.com
Michael A. Clem
>>First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress
>>and the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to
>>cut non-essential spending. In a world of 500 channels and the World Wide
>>Web, government funded radio and television networks are non-essential.
>
>
> $1 per person per year.
>
A dollar is still a dollar. If you're poor, every dollar counts. Is
that figure for all Americans, including the children, or just the
tax-paying adults?
>>Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>>defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>>Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>
> The rich have cable.
>
Exactly, so they don't need public broadcasting.
> The poor have broadcast TV.
>
And videos and dvd's. In any case, simply making public television
available is no guarantee that they'll tune in to watch it, which is
apparently why demographics show that public TV watchers are mostly not
poor. So who are we subsidizing it for, once again? In any case, it was
the FCC's own stranglehold on broadcast television that made it the
'vaste wasteland' that people had to live with before technology made
more options available.
Irie
"kstahl" <kts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zZydnQCsB-n...@comcast.com...
So why should we pay it? Would you be okay paying 15% of Fox News' expense?
I wouldn't.
> The figures are quite public and can be researched by anyone with google.
It's 15%, can you read? Boaz said it three times.
> Republicans just want to use this as a red herring even though people who
> are actually knowledgeable about the subject know the truth.
>
> --
Well, you haven't brought anything to light that wasn't already said.
Anyway, would you okay being forced to hand money to CNN or Fox News?
Irie
--
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Stop voting for the lesser of two evils: http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
The great debate is at: www.IrieEpistemology.com
Irie
this particular issue, but he would agree with you that all subsidies and
non-essential spending should be cut and the money should be given back to
the people who earned it.
Irie
--
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Stop voting for the lesser of two evils: http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
The great debate is at: www.IrieEpistemology.com
"booradley" <booradle...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dbgcd...@drn.newsguy.com...
> "Truth is the daughter of Time."
>
> I'd much rather get rid of the sugar subsidy, (.05 per lb)why don't the
> asshole
> republicans talk about that. Don't worry ...House/Senate have put the
> money
> back for CPB. This shithead will just have to pay his share.
> "He went out 'tyger' hunting with his elephant and gun, in case of
> accicdent he
> always brought his mum, the all american, bullet-headed saxon's mother
> son.
> All the children sing, Hey Bungalo Bill, what did you kill"..."
Irie
"Political Pagan" <pooki...@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns96978D5E18522po...@69.28.186.121...
> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in
> news:esSCe.56247$FP2.37028@lakeread03:
>
>> The poor don't watch CPB programming, the rich do. Funny how you
>> snipped the rest of the argument so that you only had to respond to
>> the portion you thought you could contend. You can't be bothered
>> responding to the entire post, because it proves your statement above
>> completely wrong.
>
> And where is your proof to back this line of bullshit up?
Here you go (MRI Fall 2002 Demographic survey):
http://www.prss.org/docs/1_demographic_data_03.pdf#search='CPB%20demographics'
Specifically, NPR household income summaries of $40,000 or more are 80.72%
of the audience.
You will need Acrobat Reader to view the source.
> An opinion piece
> does not count as proof or facts. Go find some actual information you
> fucking idiot.
>
>
And you are a rude, ill-informed ignoramus.
Dion
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
> Hey again Pagan,
>
> "Political Pagan" <pooki...@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
> news:Xns96978D5E18522po...@69.28.186.121...
> > "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in
> > news:esSCe.56247$FP2.37028@lakeread03:
> >
> >> The poor don't watch CPB programming, the rich do. Funny how you
> >> snipped the rest of the argument so that you only had to respond to
> >> the portion you thought you could contend. You can't be bothered
> >> responding to the entire post, because it proves your statement above
> >> completely wrong.
> >
> > And where is your proof to back this line of bullshit up?
>
> Here you go (MRI Fall 2002 Demographic survey):
>
>
http://www.prss.org/docs/1_demographic_data_03.pdf#search='CPB%20demographics'
>
> Specifically, NPR household income summaries of $40,000 or more are 80.72%
> of the audience.
>
A household income of $40,000 is considered *RICH*?
Dion
--
"There's battle lines being drawn. Nobody's right if everybody's wrong"
Irie
"Dion" <di...@noreturn.com> wrote in message
news:VMadnVpWDYA...@giganews.com...
Good point . . . but they are not poor and they do not need subisidized
news.
ZenIsWhen
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
What "fact"? There are only right wing propaganda lies presented - NO facts!
>>>Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>>>defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>>>Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>>
>> Public broadcasting is a drop in the bucket compared to the welfare
>> for the rich Shrub has provided (offshore businesses, tax cuts for the
>> wealthy, deregulation...),
>
> The same tax breaks given to these companies are given the CPB, but they
> also get 15% of their expenses paid by the taxpayer whether they like it
> or not. Would you be okay if we were to do that with Fox News as well????
They ARE????
and you, of course, just forgot to enlighten us with some valid information
for a respected site .......!
>>>In talking with their advertisers however, they're more candid. The
>>>audiences for PBS and NPR are the best educated, most profession, and
>>>richest ardencies in broadcasting. Their cultural programming reflects
>>>elite
>>>tastes, and I like a lot of it myself. But I think we, the upper middle
>>>class people should pay for our own arts and entertainment.
>>
>> Perhaps they are the only ones smart enough to see through the sea of
>> bullshit on broadcast TV and find PBS the only thing worth watching.
>
> Okay, then they can support it. Why should we be forced to support it?
For the same reason you support education - whether you have kids in school
or not!
The whole idea, in public schools and public broadcasting, is to educate and
enlighten "the masses".
Unfortunatley too many fall through the cracks ............ they are caled
republicans!
>>>Third, NPR and PBS can survive privatization. As they often remind us,
>>>they
>>>get only get 15% of their revenue from the federal government. Mr.
>>>Chairman,
>>>family and businesses in Pennsylvania often deal with 15% losses in their
>>>income. It is not fun, but they do it. The 2.5 billion dollar Public
>>>broadcasting complex can survive and prosper without federal tax dollars.
>>
>> Yeah privatization and deregulation are good things, they bring us
>> things like Enron, the east coast blackout, and lots of fun to watch
>> "perp walks"
>
> So you believe that the government is more trustworthy than private
> enterprise?
Obviously no - they are neither better or worse - nor are they the reigning
authority behind what actual programming goes INTO PBS!
>>>Fourth, in news and public affairs programming, bias is evitable. Any
>>>reporter or editor has to choose what's important. It is impossible to
>>>make
>>>such decisions with out a framework, a perspective, a view on how the
>>>world
>>>works.
>>
>> Gotta make PBS and NPR toe the line and join the rest of the
>> conservative media.
>
> They can do anything they wish. Why should we be forced to pay for it DC?
Ahh .. the old, and always ignorant, "why should I pay?" stupidity!
>>>A careful listener to NPR would notice a preponderance of reports on
>>>racism
>>>sexism and environmental destruction. Reflecting a particular perspective
>>>of
>>>what is most important in our world.
>>
>> Those 'pugnuts really despise the truth
>
> Is this not a particular perspective? Do you believe that there is only
> one perspective in the world, DC?
Someone in this newsgroup, a few months ago, made reference to the
difference between what was actually happening in the world, and what was
being reported in the news.
PBS/NPR TOPPED the list of being the most accurate - while the right wing
stations - World News Daily, and Fox News were at the BOTTOM as far as
actually reporting the facts!
This is the ONLY reason conservatives are trying to smear public
broadcasting!
They are spreading the same misinformation and lies that they used to smear
liberals, lawyers, Kerry, Senator Clinton, Max Cleland, a supreme court
that does NOT let the right wing fanatical christian zealots overthrow our
Constitution, and anyone else who stands in their way.
Political Pagan
news:duTCe.56255$FP2.21929@lakeread03:
Let's see, average rent is $875 a month (2000 census)
That equals $10,500 a year.
Groceries for a family of 4, about $500 a month
Equals $6000 a year
Electric about $250 a month
$3000 a year (not counting winter months which could add another $1500
easily)
Car payments $900 a month
$10,800 a year
School fees, at least $1000 a year
And let's not forget Gasoline, heating oil (if heat isn't electric),
insurance, doctor visits...
So far that leaves a family with $40,000 a year with not much more than a
couple thousand dollars extra a year......
Do the math yourself you dumb bitch, $40G is not a lot.
kstahl
The taxpayer's contribution to Amtrak is far above 15%. Why
should I support a commercial train venture that really
doesn't benefit me.
Irie
"ZenIsWhen" <here'sloo...@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:11do4k9...@corp.supernews.com...
Wrong.
Cite:
http://www.prss.org/docs/1_demographic_data_03.pdf#search='CPB%20demographics'
80.72% of CPB viewing households make over $40,000 a year (MRI survey, 2002)
>
>>>>Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>>>>defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>>>>Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>>>
>>> Public broadcasting is a drop in the bucket compared to the welfare
>>> for the rich Shrub has provided (offshore businesses, tax cuts for the
>>> wealthy, deregulation...),
>>
>> The same tax breaks given to these companies are given the CPB, but they
>> also get 15% of their expenses paid by the taxpayer whether they like it
>> or not. Would you be okay if we were to do that with Fox News as
>> well????
>
> They ARE????
> and you, of course, just forgot to enlighten us with some valid
> information for a respected site .......!
>
LOL, you are saying that Fox News gets a 15% taxpayer subsidy? Ha ha ha,
any proof?
>
>>>>In talking with their advertisers however, they're more candid. The
>>>>audiences for PBS and NPR are the best educated, most profession, and
>>>>richest ardencies in broadcasting. Their cultural programming reflects
>>>>elite
>>>>tastes, and I like a lot of it myself. But I think we, the upper middle
>>>>class people should pay for our own arts and entertainment.
>>>
>>> Perhaps they are the only ones smart enough to see through the sea of
>>> bullshit on broadcast TV and find PBS the only thing worth watching.
>>
>> Okay, then they can support it. Why should we be forced to support it?
>
> For the same reason you support education - whether you have kids in
> school or not!
> The whole idea, in public schools and public broadcasting, is to educate
> and enlighten "the masses".
> Unfortunatley too many fall through the cracks ............ they are caled
> republicans!
>
Republicans are just as much fools as the democrats. Our public schools
suck, even though we are force to pay for those as well. If NPR is worth
it's salt, it wouldn't need people to be forced to pay for it. Would you be
okay with being forced to pay for Fox News?
>
>>>>Third, NPR and PBS can survive privatization. As they often remind us,
>>>>they
>>>>get only get 15% of their revenue from the federal government. Mr.
>>>>Chairman,
>>>>family and businesses in Pennsylvania often deal with 15% losses in
>>>>their
>>>>income. It is not fun, but they do it. The 2.5 billion dollar Public
>>>>broadcasting complex can survive and prosper without federal tax
>>>>dollars.
>>>
>>> Yeah privatization and deregulation are good things, they bring us
>>> things like Enron, the east coast blackout, and lots of fun to watch
>>> "perp walks"
>>
>> So you believe that the government is more trustworthy than private
>> enterprise?
>
> Obviously no
Well, then why do you advocate it's support for news???
> - they are neither better or worse
Except private businesses are accountable to the people who support them and
have to compete for our money. The government is a monopoly, and all
monopolies tend towards corruption.
>- nor are they the reigning authority behind what actual programming goes
>INTO PBS!
>
This is a non-issue. Why should anyone be forced to pay for something they
do not use or want to support? Where in the Constitution does it say
citizens are obligated to give money to any radio or TV station?
>
>>>>Fourth, in news and public affairs programming, bias is evitable. Any
>>>>reporter or editor has to choose what's important. It is impossible to
>>>>make
>>>>such decisions with out a framework, a perspective, a view on how the
>>>>world
>>>>works.
>>>
>>> Gotta make PBS and NPR toe the line and join the rest of the
>>> conservative media.
>>
>> They can do anything they wish. Why should we be forced to pay for it
>> DC?
>
> Ahh .. the old, and always ignorant, "why should I pay?" stupidity!
>
What is stupid about that? Would you want to be force to pay for Fox News?
>
>>>>A careful listener to NPR would notice a preponderance of reports on
>>>>racism
>>>>sexism and environmental destruction. Reflecting a particular
>>>>perspective of
>>>>what is most important in our world.
>>>
>>> Those 'pugnuts really despise the truth
>>
>> Is this not a particular perspective? Do you believe that there is only
>> one perspective in the world, DC?
>
> Someone in this newsgroup, a few months ago, made reference to the
> difference between what was actually happening in the world, and what was
> being reported in the news.
>
> PBS/NPR TOPPED the list of being the most accurate - while the right wing
> stations - World News Daily, and Fox News were at the BOTTOM as far as
> actually reporting the facts!
>
LOL, typical liberal. "It was in a newsgroup and I agreed with it, so it is
fact". Ha ha ha ha ha, what a joke.
> This is the ONLY reason conservatives are trying to smear public
> broadcasting!
If what you state is correct, people will watch CPB programming. No one
needs to be forced to pay for it.
> They are spreading the same misinformation and lies that they used to
> smear liberals, lawyers,
LMAO! You trust lawyers?? What, do you live under a rock?
> Kerry, Senator Clinton, Max Cleland, a supreme court that does NOT let
> the right wing fanatical christian zealots overthrow our Constitution, and
> anyone else who stands in their way.
>
Every time we spend a dollar, we "vote" for the product we purchase. Being
forced to buy something is rigging the voting system and is immoral as well
as wrong. You advocate for big government and forcing people do pay for
things whether they like it or not. You and the republicans are both big
government advocates and in your heart are communist. Freedom is the only
fair and moral means to life. You should learn this and live it, Zen.
Irie
"Political Pagan" <pooki...@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns9697A0582D5BEpo...@69.28.186.121...
LOL, what an ignoramus you are. You are saying that people who make $40k a
year need subsidized news? Are you serious? LOL!!!
Irie
"kstahl" <kts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:YL6dneJKp5j...@comcast.com...
You shouldn't. Amtrak comes back every couple of years for more money.
Why? Because when any entity does not have to earn something or compete for
it, they do not use it wisely.
Jake WK
<conservat...@conservativeideals.com> wrote:
>
>
>--
>Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
>http://jaredp.blogspot.com/
>
>
>"Political Pagan" <pooki...@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
>news:Xns96971AEFE2A9Cpo...@69.28.186.121...
>> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in
>> news:eNGCe.56226$FP2.34116@lakeread03:
>>
>>> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>>> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>>> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>>
>> PBS, a channel for children that the poor can still watch with an old TV
>> antenna instead of paying $70 a month they don't have for cable TV.
>
>And yet, many poor families in fact do pay for cable, and cell phones, and
>relatively new cars (but not the insurance that goes along with it). Go
>figure.
Here we go again. It's all those welfare mothers with their Cadillacs parked
out front of public housing.....smoking crack on the government's dime.
Jake
Irie
"Jake WK" <jake...@gimmeache.com> wrote in message
news:qC7cQhSxOrnRWE...@4ax.com...
Whether what "Conservative Ideals" states is true or not is a non-issue.
The fact is that bias is inevitable in any kind of news or public policy
reporting. The government should not be funding any kind of bias, no matter
if or how the organization attempts to avoid it.
kstahl
>>The taxpayer's contribution to Amtrak is far above 15%. Why should I
>>support a commercial train venture that really doesn't benefit me.
>>
>
>
> You shouldn't. Amtrak comes back every couple of years for more money.
> Why? Because when any entity does not have to earn something or compete for
> it, they do not use it wisely.
>
> Irie
It should be also noted that Amtrak is a private company
that is wholly owned by the U.S. government. What business
does the U.S. government have in running a commercial railroad?
I am not altogether convinced that there is a need for CPB.
But just because there may not be a need for CPB, there is
no need to throw NPR out at the same time. There are plenty
of corporate and private donations and if they didn't have
CPB to rely on they would just work harder on fund raising.
The problem I have is with the Bush administration trying to
undermine public broadcasting merely because they disagree
with the politics of many of the shows and the people who
produce programs. That is heavy-handed and unjustified.
Irie
"kstahl" <kts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:77GdnZmBxuh...@comcast.com...
> Irie wrote:
>>>The taxpayer's contribution to Amtrak is far above 15%. Why should I
>>>support a commercial train venture that really doesn't benefit me.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You shouldn't. Amtrak comes back every couple of years for more money.
>> Why? Because when any entity does not have to earn something or compete
>> for it, they do not use it wisely.
>>
>> Irie
>
> It should be also noted that Amtrak is a private company that is wholly
> owned by the U.S. government. What business does the U.S. government have
> in running a commercial railroad?
>
Exactly.
> I am not altogether convinced that there is a need for CPB. But just
> because there may not be a need for CPB, there is no need to throw NPR out
> at the same time.
I agree. I like NPR and very much enjoy listening to Morning Edition and
All things Considered. That is not the point. Someone who does not listen
should not be forced to pay for it.
> There are plenty of corporate and private donations and if they didn't
> have CPB to rely on they would just work harder on fund raising.
>
Amen bro.
> The problem I have is with the Bush administration trying to undermine
> public broadcasting merely because they disagree with the politics of many
> of the shows and the people who produce programs. That is heavy-handed and
> unjustified.
>
The motivation is not the issue. It is an issue of right or wrong, and
Constitutionality. Public funding for the CPB is both wrong and
unconstitutional.
kstahl
> Hey again kstahl,
>
> "kstahl" <kts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:77GdnZmBxuh...@comcast.com...
>
>>Irie wrote:
>>
>>>>The taxpayer's contribution to Amtrak is far above 15%. Why should I
>>>>support a commercial train venture that really doesn't benefit me.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You shouldn't. Amtrak comes back every couple of years for more money.
>>>Why? Because when any entity does not have to earn something or compete
>>>for it, they do not use it wisely.
>>>
>>>Irie
>>
>>It should be also noted that Amtrak is a private company that is wholly
>>owned by the U.S. government. What business does the U.S. government have
>>in running a commercial railroad?
>>
>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>>I am not altogether convinced that there is a need for CPB. But just
>>because there may not be a need for CPB, there is no need to throw NPR out
>>at the same time.
>
>
> I agree. I like NPR and very much enjoy listening to Morning Edition and
> All things Considered. That is not the point. Someone who does not listen
> should not be forced to pay for it.
>
I don't have any kids in school and I never will, but I
still pay school taxes. I will never use the interstate
highways in Montana, yet I will pay for them. I will never
benefit from the space station and yet I still pay for it.
Unfortunately I am also forced to contribute to the salary
of a president that I despise and for whom I wish a short
life.
>
>>The problem I have is with the Bush administration trying to undermine
>>public broadcasting merely because they disagree with the politics of many
>>of the shows and the people who produce programs. That is heavy-handed and
>>unjustified.
>>
> The motivation is not the issue. It is an issue of right or wrong, and
> Constitutionality. Public funding for the CPB is both wrong and
> unconstitutional.
>
It is not unconstitutional. That is merely
Republican/conservative jargon that was made up by one of
the talking heads and you are just repeating it. You cannot
show me a single article in the constitution that is
violated by CPB. The CPB may be attacked on many other
grounds, but it cannot be considered unconstitutional
without radical judicial review by conservative activist
judges who have an axe to grind. No normal, literate person
would ever find any basis for banning the CPB on the basis
that it violates the U.S. Constitution. That apparently
excludes such screwballs as Limbaugh/Boortz/Hannity/Liddy/et
.al who provide all of the talking points to run-of-the-mill
conservatives who would be terrified if they had to actually
read the constitution themselves and make their own decisions.
Irie
Why should you have to sacrifice your earnings for something you do not
support? In any society it is impossible to eliminate socialized programs
completely (as in infrastructure, environment and domestic and foreign
defense), but should it not be minimized as much as possible? Do you really
think people would voluntarily pay as much as they do for their kids
education if the result was as bad as it is? Hasn't the free market given
us dozens of inexpensive options on just about everything we buy? At 3 AM I
can go to the local super market and purchase diet cherry cola in 12 OZ cans
if I want, and if they are out I am actually surprised and upset. Wouldn't
you like the same thing for the education of children, or your retirement
fund or whatever? Whenever government gets involved with anything that
something becomes the worst run, least efficient and most expensive thing we
could possibly get for out money.
We vote for a president every 4 years and he/she can only be there for two
terms. I understand your issue regarding Bush and I respect that, but we
need leadership and a decision maker.
>>
>>>The problem I have is with the Bush administration trying to undermine
>>>public broadcasting merely because they disagree with the politics of
>>>many of the shows and the people who produce programs. That is
>>>heavy-handed and unjustified.
>>>
>> The motivation is not the issue. It is an issue of right or wrong, and
>> Constitutionality. Public funding for the CPB is both wrong and
>> unconstitutional.
>>
>
> It is not unconstitutional.
Please cite where the Constitution states everyone should have to pay for
public broadcasting. Are we not all equal under the law as stated in the
Constitution? How are we equal when someone is forced to pay for something
they do not want to support?
> That is merely Republican/conservative jargon that was made up by one of
> the talking heads and you are just repeating it.
LOL, WHAT? The term "unconstitutional" is just jargon? Come one, you can't
be serious. Are you saying that if congress decided to pass a law that
brown eyed people have to be slaves to green eyed people, it would be
"constitutional"???
> You cannot show me a single article in the constitution that is violated
> by CPB.
Cite: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified
12/15/1791.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
In other words, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
(money), without due process of law. If you force me to pay for a service
that I do not wish to pay for and is not expressly stated that I must in the
Constitution, you are depriving me of my property or money. This IS
unconstitutional.
> The CPB may be attacked on many other grounds, but it cannot be considered
> unconstitutional without radical judicial review by conservative activist
> judges who have an axe to grind.
Wrong, see my previous cite.
> No normal, literate person would ever find any basis for banning the CPB
> on the basis that it violates the U.S. Constitution.
No literate person who actually read the Constitution would believe it was
constitutional.
> That apparently excludes such screwballs as
> Limbaugh/Boortz/Hannity/Liddy/et .al who provide all of the talking points
> to run-of-the-mill conservatives who would be terrified if they had to
> actually read the constitution themselves and make their own decisions.
>
Boaz is not a conservative and neither am I. Conservatives are just as much
big government communist as democrats. Open your eyes.
Roger
> Hey Roger,
>
> "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vtICe.4403$_%4....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
>>> http://www.irieepistemology.com/Speeches/David%20Boaz/index.htm
>>>
>>> Another Great Speech - CPB
>>>
>>> David Boaz - Cato Institute
>>>
>>> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Inouye. Thank you for
>>> the opportunity to provide a little diversity on this table and to
>>> explain why I think taxpayer funding for the Corporation for pubic
>>> broadcasting should be eliminated. I'll touch briefly on several
>>> arguments in my oral discussion, and I'll save my most important for
>>> last.
>>>
>>> First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress
>>> and the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to
>>> cut non-essential spending. In a world of 500 channels and the World
>>> Wide Web, government funded radio and television networks are
>>> non-essential.
>>
>>
>
> okay with it?
I'm forced much much more to kill innocent Iraqis.
I'm not going to stop funding the military because of it.
>
>>>
>>> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>>> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>>> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>>
>> The rich have cable.
>>
>> The poor have broadcast TV.
>>
>
> And the rich use CPB services, not the poor.
Both do.
>>> ________________
>>>
>>> Mr. Boaz is 100% correct.
>>>
>
>
Roger
news:11dnuic...@corp.supernews.com...
> Roger wrote:
>
>>>First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress
>>>and the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to
>>>cut non-essential spending. In a world of 500 channels and the World Wide
>>>Web, government funded radio and television networks are non-essential.
>>
>>
>> $1 per person per year.
>>
>
> A dollar is still a dollar. If you're poor, every dollar counts. Is that
> figure for all Americans, including the children, or just the tax-paying
> adults?
All Americans.
Just like all Americans are paying MUCH MORE to kill innocent Iraqis.
Conservative Ideals
--
Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
http://jaredp.blogspot.com/
"Jake WK" <jake...@gimmeache.com> wrote in message
news:qC7cQhSxOrnRWE...@4ax.com...
Yes - the above is from the Heritage Foundation which is a conservative
organization, but that doesn't say the numbers are wrong. If you have a
better source of information by all means post it.
The point I want to make is that people in poverty don't have it quite as
bad as what you would think by the word "poverty." The idea that poor
people don't have cable television is just wrong. I would be very
interested to see what percentage of the general population has cable
compared to people in poverty.
What Is Poverty?
The Census Bureau reports that 35.9 million persons "lived in poverty" in
2003. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these
numbers and examine the actual living conditions of the individuals the
government deems to be poor.7 For most Americans, the word "poverty"
suggests destitution--an inability to provide a family with nutritious food,
clothing, and reasonable shelter. Yet only a small number of the millions of
persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description.
Although real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope
and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that
would be judged as comfortable or well off just a few generations ago.
The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are
taken from various government reports:
a.. Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The
average home owned by persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau is a
three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or
patio.
b.. Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By
contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population
enjoyed air conditioning.
c.. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than
two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
d.. The average poor American has more living space than the average
individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities
throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign
countries, not to those classified as poor.)
e.. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two
or more cars.
f.. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over
half own two or more color televisions.
g.. Seventy-eight percent of America's poor own a VCR or DVD player; 62
percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
h.. Seventy-three percent of America's poor own microwave ovens; more than
half have a stereo; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm#pgfId-1135685
Conservative Ideals
--
Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
http://jaredp.blogspot.com/
"Dion" <di...@noreturn.com> wrote in message
news:VMadnVpWDYA...@giganews.com...
>
According to Kiplinger Magazine, if your household incom is above $33K you
are in the upper 50% of the country.
IF YOUR FAMILY INCOME THEN YOU'RE AMONG
IS AT LEAST ... THE TOP ...
$355,000 1%
130,600 5
93,800 10
60,800 25
33,400 50
So if 80% of your viewership is from the upper half, then it's hard to say
your services are primarily consumed by the poor.
Also, a common argument seems to be that PBS only receives a small portion
of its funding from the federal government. That would seem to say that it
would be that much easier for it to survive without that very small portion
from the federal government and just increase it's donation drives. If
people think its worth keeping, they'll vote with their dollars.
Conservative Ideals
--
Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
http://jaredp.blogspot.com/
"Political Pagan" <pooki...@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns9697A0582D5BEpo...@69.28.186.121...
I can only imagine your parents shame raising some poor shmuck whose only
idea of debate is vulgarity. You are assuming that all of the factors above
would apply to every family of four, whereas most families if they are
facing an economic crunch, if they have any sense, will cut back. Who,
earning $40k with 2 kids to support, would spend $900/month on cars??
That's just bad financial skills. Very few families are going to be
"average" in every category - and "average" is the composite of the highest
and the lowest. I would be more interested in seeing "average" payments
being described as the mode for a menu of items instead of each item
separate.
Irie
Which is necessary and which is not?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>>>> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>>>> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>>>
>>> The rich have cable.
>>>
>>> The poor have broadcast TV.
>>>
>>
>> And the rich use CPB services, not the poor.
>
> Both do.
>
So? Most are not poor and both use taxis. Should we subsidize those as
well?
Irie
> "Michael A. Clem" <macsnafuatintergatedotcom> wrote in message
> news:11dnuic...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Roger wrote:
>>
>>>>First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress
>>>>and the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to
>>>>cut non-essential spending. In a world of 500 channels and the World
>>>>Wide Web, government funded radio and television networks are
>>>>non-essential.
>>>
>>>
>>> $1 per person per year.
>>>
>>
>> A dollar is still a dollar. If you're poor, every dollar counts. Is
>> that figure for all Americans, including the children, or just the
>> tax-paying adults?
>
> All Americans.
>
> Just like all Americans are paying MUCH MORE to kill innocent Iraqis.
>
Is CPB a necessity, Roger?
Political Pagan
in news:3JedneuWmfT...@giganews.com:
> I can only imagine your parents shame raising some poor shmuck whose
> only idea of debate is vulgarity.
Really, isn't that just fucking too bad for you numbnuts?
It's still a free country, you don't like my language, killfile me.
Roger
Obviously we must keep killing innocent people.
We are Americans. We must act as such.
Roger
>
> "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vDYCe.829$Fk4...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> "Michael A. Clem" <macsnafuatintergatedotcom> wrote in message
>> news:11dnuic...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Roger wrote:
>>>
>>>>>First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and
>>>>>congress and the appropriations committee should be looking for
>>>>>opportunities to cut non-essential spending. In a world of 500 channels
>>>>>and the World Wide Web, government funded radio and television networks
>>>>>are non-essential.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> $1 per person per year.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A dollar is still a dollar. If you're poor, every dollar counts. Is
>>> that figure for all Americans, including the children, or just the
>>> tax-paying adults?
>>
>> All Americans.
>>
>> Just like all Americans are paying MUCH MORE to kill innocent Iraqis.
>>
>
> Is CPB a necessity, Roger?
Irrelevant.
Kel
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
> Hey Pagan,> news:Xns96971AEFE2A9Cpo...@69.28.186.121...
>> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in
>> news:eNGCe.56226$FP2.34116@lakeread03:
>>
>>> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>>> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>>> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>>
>> antenna instead of paying $70 a month they don't have for cable TV.
>>
>>
>
Care to offer some statistics that back up that claim. Because the guy who's
article you posted was careful not to make it. He only spoke of them being
candid to advertisers that actually it wasn't only the poor that watched
their channel.
Kel
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
> http://www.irieepistemology.com/Speeches/David%20Boaz/index.htm
>
> Another Great Speech - CPB
>
> David Boaz - Cato Institute
>
> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Inouye. Thank you for
> the opportunity to provide a little diversity on this table and to explain
> why I think taxpayer funding for the Corporation for pubic broadcasting
> should be eliminated. I'll touch briefly on several arguments in my oral
> discussion, and I'll save my most important for last.
>
> and the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to
> cut non-essential spending.
Yes, the rich should hand back the tax cuts that gave you that deficit.
That's a case of non-essential spending. The rich are always bleating on
about how many obstacles they had to get over in order to build their
fortunes. Let's put a few more in their path and bring out their
entrepreneurial skills. Your nation needs and demands it.
In a world of 500 channels and the World Wide Web,
> government funded radio and television networks are non-essential.
Not everyone can afford 500 channels and the web.
>
> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
And they do both.
>
> In talking with their advertisers however, they're more candid.
Candid? Why candid if they say that their audience is larger than simply the
poorest members of society. After all, everyone pays for it. It should have
something for everyone.
The
> audiences for PBS and NPR are the best educated, most profession, and
> richest ardencies in broadcasting. Their cultural programming reflects
> elite tastes, and I like a lot of it myself. But I think we, the upper
> middle class people should pay for our own arts and entertainment.
No, he's saying he doesn't think he should pay for poor people.
>
> Third, NPR and PBS can survive privatization. As they often remind us,
> they get only get 15% of their revenue from the federal government. Mr.
> Chairman, family and businesses in Pennsylvania often deal with 15% losses
> in their income. It is not fun, but they do it. The 2.5 billion dollar
> Public broadcasting complex can survive and prosper without federal tax
> dollars.
>
> Fourth, in news and public affairs programming, bias is evitable. Any
> reporter or editor has to choose what's important. It is impossible to
> make such decisions with out a framework, a perspective, a view on how the
> world works.
>
> A careful listener to NPR would notice a preponderance of reports on
> racism sexism and environmental destruction. Reflecting a particular
> perspective of what is most important in our world.
A careful listener would notice that this is not Fox News. That's what he
really objects to.
>
> David Fanny, the Executive producer of PBS's Frontline responds of
> questions of bias by saying, "we ask hard questions to people in power.
> This is an aphemia to people in Washington these days." [End quote]
>
> But there has never, been a Frontline documentary on the burden of taxes,
> or the number of people have died because federal regulations have kept
> drugs off of the market, or the way the states government have abused the
> rule of law for their pursuit of tobacco companies, or the number or
> people who use guns to prevent crime.
He then lists a lot of totally right wing topics that he's furious they
don't cover. "The way states government have abused the rule of law for
their pursuit of tobacco companies"? Is this guy on smack? He's now saying
we're too hard on tobacco? Right wing nutcase.
>
> Those hard questions just don't occur to a liberal journalist.
>
> Anyone who got all his news from NPR would never know, that Americans of
> all races live longer, healthier, and in more comfort than ever before in
> history, or that the environment is getting steadily cleaner.
>
> And that brings me to my major concern. We would not want the federal
> government to publish a national newspaper. Neither should have a
> government television Network and government radio network.
But the government at the moment are Republicans, right? So he's saying that
this is a form of dangerous government media control and yet the right wing
Republicans have so little control over the product that it's spouting left
wing bias? This nutjob doesn't understand how to build a coherent argument.
>
> If anything should be kept separate from government and politics, it is
> the news and public affairs programming that informs American's about
> government and its policies.
>
> When government brings us the news, with all of the enviable bias and
> spin,
But the Republicans haven't apparently been able to apply ANY spin to this
as, by his own accusation, the station produces a left wing product.
> the government is putting its thumb on the scales pf democracy. Journalist
> should not work for the government. Journalist should not have officials
> at the government looking over their shoulders, and taxpayers should not
> be forced to subsidies news and public affairs programming.
>
> Therefore, I urge you not merely to reduce, but to eliminate taxpayer
> funding for public broadcasting.
>
> Now even if this committee comes to my conclusion that tax payer funding
> for radio and television networks is imprudent and constitutionally
> unfounded; I recognize that you may hesitate to withdraw a funding stream
> that station count on.
>
> Even though that federal funding is only about 15% of public broadcasting
> revenues, you might choose to phase out the funding, perhaps on a
> five-year schedule.
> The total funding request for this year is 500 million dollars. If
> congress could reduce it by 100 million dollars a year, leaving the CPB
> entirely free of federal taxpayer funding and of federal intervention in
> what journalist do at the end of five years.
>
> Thank you for your attention senators.
>
> ________________
>
> Mr. Boaz is 100% correct.
His argument is actually full of holes.
Kel
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
> How do you justify forcing people to pay for something?
What are you talking about? We do that all the time. We pay for policemen
that we might never have to call on, firemen for our houses even though they
may never go on fire. It's called community. We all pay even though we might
never call on that particular service.
Where in the
> Constitution does it say we should be forced to pay for TV or Radio
> broadcasting?
And it not being written there means what exactly?
Kel
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
> Hey DC,
>
> "DC Madman" <mis...@whidbey.net> wrote in message
> news:72fmd1dji3sm4g7j4...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 01:06:29 -0400, "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Another Great Speech - CPB
>>>
>>>David Boaz - Cato Institute
>>>
>>>Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Inouye. Thank you for
>>>the
>>>opportunity to provide a little diversity on this table and to explain
>>>why I
>>>think taxpayer funding for the Corporation for pubic broadcasting should
>>>be
>>>eliminated. I'll touch briefly on several arguments in my oral
>>>discussion,
>>>and I'll save my most important for last.
>>>
>>>First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress
>>>and
>>>the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to cut
>>>government funded radio and television networks are non-essential.
>>
>> a spare $100 bucks a month to get those 500 channels. The only reason
>> I'm a recovered conservative is I have the spare cash for access to
>> somethinig other than the conservative media and have access to the
>> truth..
>
> Most people who listen to NPR can afford it. See fact #2.
Most. That means there are some who can't.
(Snip)
Irie
> "Conservative Ideals" <conservat...@conservativeideals.com> wrote
> in news:3JedneuWmfT...@giganews.com:
>
>> I can only imagine your parents shame raising some poor shmuck whose
>> only idea of debate is vulgarity.
>
> Really, isn't that just fucking too bad for you numbnuts?
>
> It's still a free country, you don't like my language, killfile me.
>
>
> --
As opposed to being such an ignoramus, Pagan, why not just respond to what
Ideals said? Unless you know you are wrong and just want to live in your
dream world so you can believe anything you want despite the fact it is no
true in reality . . .
Irie
Look, I don't care to debate the Iraq war with you in this thread. If you
want to do that, start another thread and let me know which one it is. I'd
be happy to defend America's actions in the WOT and show you how misguided
you are in your anti-Americanism. Now let's stick to the point of this
thread, which is a necessity, the military of the CPB?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>>>>>> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>>>>>> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rich have cable.
>>>>>
>>>>> The poor have broadcast TV.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the rich use CPB services, not the poor.
>>>
>>> Both do.
>>>
>>
>> So? Most are not poor and both use taxis. Should we subsidize those as
>> well?
Are you going to answer this question or have you conceded this point?
Irie
Irrelevant to what? This thread? As I said before, if you want to debate
the WOT, let's do it. But don't turn a conversation about the CPB into a
discussion about the WOT just because you want to avoid the fact that you
are wrong about the CPB. Stick with the topic which is relevant. Don't try
to avoid it just because you can't defend your own stance.
Irie
"Kel" <oster...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:di8De.1243$Pf3...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
> news:eNGCe.56226$FP2.34116@lakeread03...
>> http://www.irieepistemology.com/Speeches/David%20Boaz/index.htm
>>
>> Another Great Speech - CPB
>>
>> David Boaz - Cato Institute
>>
>> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Inouye. Thank you for
>> the opportunity to provide a little diversity on this table and to
>> explain why I think taxpayer funding for the Corporation for pubic
>> broadcasting should be eliminated. I'll touch briefly on several
>> arguments in my oral discussion, and I'll save my most important for
>> last.
>>
>> First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress
>> and the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to
>> cut non-essential spending.
>
> Yes, the rich should hand back the tax cuts that gave you that deficit.
The "rich" pay 80% of the taxes and most of the "rich" are small businesses
that have more of a likelihood to go bankrupt than survive. Just because
you are jealous of those you are more productive than yourself does not give
you the right to take from them something you did not earn. The problem
with the deficit is uncontrolled spending, not a lack of revenue. Someone
who makes only $35,000 a year pays nearly half their income in taxes when
you add up income tax, state taxes, local taxes, sin taxes, property taxes,
capital gains taxes and so on. You really think that is good? Do you think
someone making $35,000 a year is "rich"???
> That's a case of non-essential spending. The rich are always bleating on
> about how many obstacles they had to get over in order to build their
> fortunes. Let's put a few more in their path and bring out their
> entrepreneurial skills. Your nation needs and demands it.
>
You are just jealous that you are not as productive as those who have earned
wealth. The top 10% of income earners in the US pay 80% of the taxes. And
you want more. Why? For what? More handouts to people who have not earned
it?
> In a world of 500 channels and the World Wide Web,
>> government funded radio and television networks are non-essential.
>
> Not everyone can afford 500 channels and the web.
>
Not the point. Check out the MRI study done in 2002:
http://www.prss.org/docs/1_demographic_data_03.pdf#search='CPB%20demographics'
Over 80% of the households that use CPB services make over $40,000 or more a
year. These are not the poor and can certainly pay for their own news and
public affairs broadcasting.
Nevertheless, the CPB programming would not go away. They only get 15% and
lower income people can afford radios and TVs to watch PBS and NPR. They do
not need to be handed money from people who do not care to do so.
>>
>> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>> defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>> Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>
> And they do both.
>
And they still will without taking money from people who do not want to give
it to them. It's completely unconstitutional and wrong.
>>
>> In talking with their advertisers however, they're more candid.
>
> Candid? Why candid if they say that their audience is larger than simply
> the poorest members of society. After all, everyone pays for it. It should
> have something for everyone.
>
But there isn't and it doesn't matter. Would you like it if you were forced
to pay 15% of Fox News' or CNN's expenses every year? I wouldn't.
> The
>> audiences for PBS and NPR are the best educated, most profession, and
>> richest ardencies in broadcasting. Their cultural programming reflects
>> elite tastes, and I like a lot of it myself. But I think we, the upper
>> middle class people should pay for our own arts and entertainment.
>
> No, he's saying he doesn't think he should pay for poor people.
>
Poor people can afford TVs and radios, both of which receive NPR and PBS
broadcasting for free. As well as many other news outlets. It's only 15%,
they can survive without it. We have to cut it out because it is wrong and
unconstitutional.
>>
>> Third, NPR and PBS can survive privatization. As they often remind us,
>> they get only get 15% of their revenue from the federal government. Mr.
>> Chairman, family and businesses in Pennsylvania often deal with 15%
>> losses in their income. It is not fun, but they do it. The 2.5 billion
>> dollar Public broadcasting complex can survive and prosper without
>> federal tax dollars.
>>
>> Fourth, in news and public affairs programming, bias is evitable. Any
>> reporter or editor has to choose what's important. It is impossible to
>> make such decisions with out a framework, a perspective, a view on how
>> the world works.
>>
>> A careful listener to NPR would notice a preponderance of reports on
>> racism sexism and environmental destruction. Reflecting a particular
>> perspective of what is most important in our world.
>
> A careful listener would notice that this is not Fox News. That's what he
> really objects to.
>
If Fox News got a 15% payment from you and I to cover it's expenses, both
Boaz and I would say the same thing about that. You are upset because you
want people to be forced to pay for an information outlet with your
perspective. Much like Stalin and Hitler, you want to force your opinion on
other people, and make them pay for it as well.
>>
>> David Fanny, the Executive producer of PBS's Frontline responds of
>> questions of bias by saying, "we ask hard questions to people in power.
>> This is an aphemia to people in Washington these days." [End quote]
>>
>> But there has never, been a Frontline documentary on the burden of taxes,
>> or the number of people have died because federal regulations have kept
>> drugs off of the market, or the way the states government have abused the
>> rule of law for their pursuit of tobacco companies, or the number or
>> people who use guns to prevent crime.
>
> He then lists a lot of totally right wing topics that he's furious they
> don't cover. "The way states government have abused the rule of law for
> their pursuit of tobacco companies"? Is this guy on smack? He's now saying
> we're too hard on tobacco? Right wing nutcase.
>
He is not right wing, he is libertarian. There is no real difference
between the left and the right today. Whether these are "right wing topics"
or "left wing topics", the fact is that all news outlets by definition are
bias. Because someone has to prioritize what news is important, they have
to make a personal judgment on the merits of each topic. This is by
definition bias. Why should anyone be forced to pay the expenses so that
any particular bias has an outlet to espouse it's point of view. You openly
admit that the views expressed by Boaz is not what is heard in CPB
programming, yet you feel as if it okay that he is forced to pay for it.
Would you feel the same if a portion of your tax dollars went to Fox News?
>>
>> Those hard questions just don't occur to a liberal journalist.
>>
>> Anyone who got all his news from NPR would never know, that Americans of
>> all races live longer, healthier, and in more comfort than ever before in
>> history, or that the environment is getting steadily cleaner.
>>
>> And that brings me to my major concern. We would not want the federal
>> government to publish a national newspaper. Neither should have a
>> government television Network and government radio network.
>
> But the government at the moment are Republicans, right? So he's saying
> that this is a form of dangerous government media control and yet the
> right wing Republicans have so little control over the product that it's
> spouting left wing bias? This nutjob doesn't understand how to build a
> coherent argument.
>
Kel, you are not making any sense. Do you feel the republicans should force
you to pay for a news outlet that will espouse right wing ideals? Would you
be okay with a national newspaper that you are forced to pay for that is
controlled by Bush? If you are not okay with that, then how are you okay
with people being forced to pay for a left wing news outlet? Your argument
is filled with hypocrisy. What Boaz states is exactly as it is. You are
just upset because you want us to pay for a propaganda machine that you
happen to agree.
>>
>> If anything should be kept separate from government and politics, it is
>> the news and public affairs programming that informs American's about
>> government and its policies.
>>
>> When government brings us the news, with all of the enviable bias and
>> spin,
>
> But the Republicans haven't apparently been able to apply ANY spin to this
> as, by his own accusation, the station produces a left wing product.
>
So you are okay with it as long as it only produces left wing view points.
Okay.
>> the government is putting its thumb on the scales pf democracy.
>> Journalist should not work for the government. Journalist should not have
>> officials at the government looking over their shoulders, and taxpayers
>> should not be forced to subsidies news and public affairs programming.
>>
>> Therefore, I urge you not merely to reduce, but to eliminate taxpayer
>> funding for public broadcasting.
>>
>> Now even if this committee comes to my conclusion that tax payer funding
>> for radio and television networks is imprudent and constitutionally
>> unfounded; I recognize that you may hesitate to withdraw a funding stream
>> that station count on.
>>
>> Even though that federal funding is only about 15% of public broadcasting
>> revenues, you might choose to phase out the funding, perhaps on a
>> five-year schedule.
>> The total funding request for this year is 500 million dollars. If
>> congress could reduce it by 100 million dollars a year, leaving the CPB
>> entirely free of federal taxpayer funding and of federal intervention in
>> what journalist do at the end of five years.
>>
>> Thank you for your attention senators.
>>
>> ________________
>>
>> Mr. Boaz is 100% correct.
>
> His argument is actually full of holes.
>
To force people in American to give up their life, liberty or property
(money) without due process of the law is unconstitutional. By forcing
people to pay for a news outlet that they do not wish to support without due
process, is wrong. If you would never give a dime of your money to Fox
News, but you feel that everyone should be forced to pay 15% of the CPB's
expenses, you are a hypocrite.
Irie
"Kel" <oster...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ik8De.1244$Pf3...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Here you go:
http://www.prss.org/docs/1_demographic_data_03.pdf#search='CPB%20demographics'
Over 80% of people who use CPB services make over $40,000 a year. They do
not need tax payer subsidized news. And we are talking about 15% of the
CPB's revenues. As Boaz points out, many families and businesses survive a
15% loss in revenue and so can the CPB. Forcing people to pay for something
they do not use is immoral, wrong and unconstitutional.
Irie
There are some that can't afford taxis or a trip to Europe. Should we pay
for that too?
Irie
>
> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
> news:ntSCe.56249$FP2.20458@lakeread03...
>> How do you justify forcing people to pay for something?
>
> What are you talking about? We do that all the time. We pay for policemen
> that we might never have to call on, firemen for our houses even though
> they may never go on fire. It's called community. We all pay even though
> we might never call on that particular service.
>
First, like most people who cannot support their arguments and prefer to
live in a dream world as opposed to reality, you snipped most of my
comments.
As for the little you did respond , police and firefighters are necessities
for which we cannot fund on our own. Are you actually claiming that the CPB
is a necessity that cannot fund itself??
> Where in the
>> Constitution does it say we should be forced to pay for TV or Radio
>> broadcasting?
>
> And it not being written there means what exactly?
>
>
It means it is unconstitutional. Pick up the Constitution and read it some
time, it would do you quite a bit of good. It states that "No person shall
be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of
War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or PROPERTY, without due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Taking money from people without due process of the law is unconstitutional
unless expressly granted by the Constitution. Again, where does it say we
have to pay for public broadcasting?
Irie
OidnfTU898...@comcast.com...
> Irie wrote:
>> "kstahl" <kts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>I don't have any kids in school and I never will, but I still pay school
>>>taxes. I will never use the interstate highways in Montana, yet I will
>>>pay for them. I will never benefit from the space station and yet I still
>>>pay for it. Unfortunately I am also forced to contribute to the salary of
>>>a president that I despise and for whom I wish a short life.
>>
>>
>> Why should you have to sacrifice your earnings for something you do not
>> support? In any society it is impossible to eliminate socialized
>> programs completely (as in infrastructure, environment and domestic and
>> foreign defense), but should it not be minimized as much as possible? Do
>> you really think people would voluntarily pay as much as they do for
>> their kids education if the result was as bad as it is? Hasn't the free
>> market given us dozens of inexpensive options on just about everything we
>> buy? At 3 AM I can go to the local super market and purchase diet cherry
>> cola in 12 OZ cans if I want, and if they are out I am actually surprised
>> and upset. Wouldn't you like the same thing for the education of
>> children, or your retirement fund or whatever? Whenever government gets
>> involved with anything that something becomes the worst run, least
>> efficient and most expensive thing we could possibly get for out money.
>>
>> We vote for a president every 4 years and he/she can only be there for
>> two terms. I understand your issue regarding Bush and I respect that,
>> but we need leadership and a decision maker.
>>
>>
> Bush does not provide leadership and he is constantly making the wrong
> decisions for America.
>
That is your opinion.
> Schools fail because school boards have become politicized and are rampant
> with corruption.
Which happens in every monopoly. Government is a monopoly.
> It is the school board members themselves who view their position as an
> entitlement because there are hundreds of ways that they can skim money
> from the school budgets so that the schools themselves do not receive the
> funding that is supposed to be allotted to them.
It is an entitlement. They do not compete to earn their living. If
teachers can do even a half assed job for ten years, they can't even be
fired! It's a joke, like nearly all government programs.
> Most school board members in most school districts do not have children
> attending any school in that district. There should be a requirement that
> every member have at least one child attending a school in that district
> and that should be a qualification to be on the ballot.
>
Whatever. If they had to compete, this would not be an issue. We would get
the most for our money, not the least as it is today.
> The move by conservatives to utterly destroy public schooling is one that
> is intended to force the lower classes to fund private schools for the
> children of the elite. Those parents often do not pay taxes because they
> know many creative ways to shelter their income from taxes - methods that
> are not available to those who are not part of the elite.
So let me see if I can get your logic down here. Public schools do not work
because they "feel" as if they are entitled (when if fact the system for
which you advocate does create an entitlement for them). People who are in
the "elite" avoid paying taxes (even though the wealthiest 10% of the
population pays 80% of the taxes . . . and BTW - schools are nearly 100%
funded by property taxes, not income taxes). And now, because some people
see that the system does not work and want to change it, they are sticking
it to the poorer people because they don't want more of a system that does
not work. That's logic for you.
> It is also racist because those elite know with absolute certainty that it
> will prevent minority children from receiving a proper education.
What? Property taxes pay for education, kstahl. This means that in a
wealthy part of town, they will have nice schools. In a crappy part of
town, they will have crappy schools. THE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK. The only
way to get the most for our money is to have businesses compete for that
money. This is why we can go to the grocery store and by diet cherry coke
in 12 oz cans and be surprised if they do not have it. When low income
areas can fire a bad school system and bring on another, that is when
education can improve.
> The answer is not to dismantle public schooling, but to fix it and stop
> squabbling about the need to include religion in education where it
> doesn't belong in the first place.
What??? The reason why schools suck is because people want religion in
them? Come on, man. You can't be serious. Talk about comparing apples and
oranges. Religion does not belong in school, I agree. But someone who is
pushing for it is not creating a situation where the systems that are in
place now are not working.
> If schools are inefficient, it is because school boards are not held
> accountable for the ways that they waste money on athletic teams and other
> things that have nothing to do with academics.
WHAT??? Athletics has nothing to do with education? You can't be serious.
So let me get this straight - to you, if people would stop requesting that
schools teach religion and we were to eliminate athletics, everything would
be fine. The problem is in the first 13 words of your statement above:
they are inefficient because they are not accountable. Period, end of
story. Now the question is how do we make them accountable? Make them
compete for their earnings.
> Inter-school sports are a huge portion of a school's budget and just by
> eliminating that and funding the library instead the schools would start
> turning around.
>
We pay a ton of money to our school systems every year, yet education just
gets worse. If people had to pay for their children's education themselves,
they would make darn sure that they got the most for their money. But they
don't, they force everybody to pay for it and what you get is what you get.
This is why our school systems suck.
>
>>
>>
>> Cite: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
>> Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified
>> 12/15/1791.
>> "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
>> crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
>> cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
>> actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
>> subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
>> nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
>> himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
>> process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
>> without just compensation."
>>
>> In other words, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
>> (money), without due process of law. If you force me to pay for a
>> service that I do not wish to pay for and is not expressly stated that I
>> must in the Constitution, you are depriving me of my property or money.
>> This IS unconstitutional.
>>
>>
>
> That is a parochial and phony argument.
It's an exact quote!
> One of many that come from the conservative talking heads and would never
> hold up to to judicial review by educated and experienced jurists who make
> decisions without political bias.
LOL, it's an exact quote! Are you saying that judicial review does not
conform to Constitutional standards? LOL, okay.
> In fact, the constitution has never been interpreted to mean that taxes
> cannot be levied for the common good.
I never said that. It states exactly as the quote states, no one can be
deprived of property without due process of the law. Taxes, by law, go
towards certain things. The CPB is not one of them, unless you can cite
where it is stated.
> Outside of conservative think tanks no one has ever accepted that argument
> to declare that something like the CPB is unconstitutional but
> conservatives have this faulty belief that if they keep hammering away at
> the same useless points that someday they will be able to overthrow the
> U.S. government and replace it with a conservative dictatorship since
> democracy does nto serve their purposes.
First, neither Boaz or I are conservative. He is a Libertarian and I am an
Objectivist. The similarities in the viewpoints is that liberty and freedom
are what this country was founded upon, something both the political left
and right have lost sight of many years ago. Republicans and Democrats
realized that if they could convince naive people that if they just give
their money to them. they will solve all of their problems. And
unfortunately, people such as yourself have bought it hook, line and sinker.
It is yours and the Right's political philosophy that will lead to
dictatorships and massive government, not mine nor would Boaz.
It is unconstitutional to force people to pay for a news outlet like the
CPB. If you were forced to pay for 15% of Fox News' expenses, would you
consider that Constitutional??
> Such things are radical interpretations
Look, let me give you some advice. If someone gives you an exact quote, it
is not a radical interpretation.
> and are an attempt to legislate from the bench. Radical opinions could
> hardly be considered to be within the intent of those who wrote Amendment
> V.
>
What would be radical is to actually believe that it is Constitutional to
forcibly taking property (money) from people to support a liberal news
outlet.
Irie
--
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Stop voting for the lesser of two evils: http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
The great debate is at: www.IrieEpistemology.com
"kstahl" <kts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:-
Political Pagan
news:v89De.56312$FP2.18652@lakeread03:
> As opposed to being such an ignoramus, Pagan, why not just respond to
> what Ideals said? Unless you know you are wrong and just want to live
> in your dream world so you can believe anything you want despite the
> fact it is no true in reality . . .
Do you even know what a response is?
I CHOOSE how I respond, not you. Bush hasn't turned this country into a
dictatorship yet.
Roger
You wanted to argue about where our tax dollars go.
Much much more goes to the military.
If you can't defend yourself, don't bother posting.
Roger
"Necessity" isn't a requirement for funding.
Irrelevant.
Irie
"Political Pagan" <pooki...@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns96988F870857Apo...@69.28.186.121...
> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in
> news:v89De.56312$FP2.18652@lakeread03:
>
>> As opposed to being such an ignoramus, Pagan, why not just respond to
>> what Ideals said? Unless you know you are wrong and just want to live
>> in your dream world so you can believe anything you want despite the
>> fact it is no true in reality . . .
>
> Do you even know what a response is?
>
Yes, and you childish little tantrums are not a response.
> I CHOOSE how I respond, not you. Bush hasn't turned this country into a
> dictatorship yet.
>
That's right. You choose to look like a little baby who cries as opposed to
speaking coherently. Good for you.
Typical liberal.
Irie
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:P5fDe.12202$NU2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Wrong. We were discussing CPB funding. If you cannot support your orginal
stance on the issue, then just concede that you were wrong.
> Much much more goes to the military.
>
Wow, what a revelation.
> If you can't defend yourself, don't bother posting.
>
I can and will. Like I said, if you want me to so how your anti-American
and cowardly views regarding the war are wrong, start another thread. But
don't try to deflect the issue at hand just because you don't care to defend
you communist point of view.
Irie
Again, you don't want to answer the question because you know you are wrong.
You'd rather avoid the topic so you can remain in your dream world and not
have to face reality. What a shame.
Hugh Gibbons
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote:
> The "rich" pay 80% of the taxes and most of the "rich" are small businesses
> that have more of a likelihood to go bankrupt than survive. Just because
> you are jealous of those you are more productive than yourself does not give
> you the right to take from them something you did not earn. The problem
> with the deficit is uncontrolled spending, not a lack of revenue. Someone
> who makes only $35,000 a year pays nearly half their income in taxes when
> you add up income tax, state taxes, local taxes, sin taxes, property taxes,
> capital gains taxes and so on. You really think that is good? Do you think
> someone making $35,000 a year is "rich"???
I think that's a lie.
==> ALL COMMENTS IMO <==
Hugh Gibbons
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote:
> Look, I don't care to debate the Iraq war with you in this thread. If you
> want to do that, start another thread and let me know which one it is. I'd
> be happy to defend America's actions in the WOT and show you how misguided
> you are in your anti-Americanism. Now let's stick to the point of this
> thread, which is a necessity, the military of the CPB?
20% of the US military is necessary to defend the United States. The
rest is a corporate welfare program.
Roger
So, you defend your right to be a pussy who can't back up what he says.
Good luck with that.
Hugh Gibbons
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote:
> Taking money from people without due process of the law is unconstitutional
> unless expressly granted by the Constitution.
But since the Constitution gives Congress the power to collect taxes,
that's irrelevant.
> Again, where does it say we
> have to pay for public broadcasting?
In the Appropriations bill.
Hugh Gibbons
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote:
> Over 80% of people who use CPB services make over $40,000 a year. They do
> not need tax payer subsidized news. And we are talking about 15% of the
> CPB's revenues.
So the government picks up 3/4 of the tab for the 20% of the watchers
who can't afford to pay for themselves and the watchers who can afford
it pay for themselves and the remaining quarter of those who can't
afford to contribute. Where was thing argument going again? I forgot.
Irie
"Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote in message
news:party-3E18E6....@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com...
Of course. Any fact that does not jive with your point of view is a lie.
Typical liberal. This is an MRI study done for the CPB. Any proof that it
is not true? Please cite. Your opinion doesn't mean crap.
Irie
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nufDe.12359$NU2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
I have. You can't support your point of view because, like most liberals,
you want to believe what you believe despite the facts. Good luck with
that.
>
>> Like I said, if you want me to so how your anti-American and cowardly
>> views regarding the war are wrong, start another thread. But don't try
>> to deflect the issue at hand just because you don't care to defend you
>> communist point of view.
>>
No comment? Go figure, typical commie.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their
>>>>>>>>>> public defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame
>>>>>>>>>> Street and Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The rich have cable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The poor have broadcast TV.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the rich use CPB services, not the poor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So? Most are not poor and both use taxis. Should we subsidize those
>>>>>> as well?
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to answer this question or have you conceded this point?
>>>>
>>
>> Are you going to answer this question or have you conceded this point?
>>
Gald to see you concede this point.
Irie
--
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Stop voting for the lesser of two evils: http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
The great debate is at: www.IrieEpistemology.com
"Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote in message
news:party-85EB02....@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com...
Any proof besides your opinion? No? Go figure. I have supplied proof of
what I have stated, and all you can do is give your opinion, which is
uneducated at best.
Irie
> In article <0_aDe.56319$FP2.41789@lakeread03>,
> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote:
>
>> Taking money from people without due process of the law is
>> unconstitutional
>> unless expressly granted by the Constitution.
>
> But since the Constitution gives Congress the power to collect taxes,
> that's irrelevant.
>
So if congress decided to collect taxes from you and give it to Fox News,
the issue would become irrelevant? You are willing to give the government
that amount of power and not question it? LOL, I KNEW you were a commie!
>> Again, where does it say we
>> have to pay for public broadcasting?
>
> In the Appropriations bill.
>
> ==> ALL COMMENTS IMO <==
So, again, if there was an appropriations bill to give money to say, the
conservative movement 10 million dollars a year to espouse their point of
view, you'd be okay with that? Like sheep to the slaughter, yet again
another American gives up his or her rights just because it fits there
personal preference. What a shame.
If your answer to these questions is no, you would not allow it to happen -
then you are a hypocrite. If your answer to these questions is yes, then
you are a fool. Keep up the good work, Hugh.
Irie
"Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote in message
news:party-7578D4....@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com...
LOL, are you saying that in order for the CPB to survive it needs to extort
money from people? What about the 20% of people who cannot afford a
Cadillac, or boat, or cable TV, or internet access or whatever. Should we
all pool our money together for that? If so, please send me your check. I
am sure you won't mind giving it up.
Conservative Ideals
--
Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
http://jaredp.blogspot.com/
"Political Pagan" <pooki...@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns9698706012BEpo...@69.28.186.121...
> "Conservative Ideals" <conservat...@conservativeideals.com> wrote
> in news:3JedneuWmfT...@giganews.com:
>
>> I can only imagine your parents shame raising some poor shmuck whose
>> only idea of debate is vulgarity.
>
> Really, isn't that just fucking too bad for you numbnuts?
>
> It's still a free country, you don't like my language, killfile me.
You're quite right - it is a free country - why do you think I don't have
the right to point out how incredibly deficient you are? I mean, really,
anyone who has read any of your posts can see it for themselves - I'm really
just pointing out the obvious (Look, the sun is shining. Look, political
pagan is a raving moron - same thing, basically).
You're an idiot, and I hope for the sake of future generations that you
don't reproduce.
And now for the last word, plonk.
Conservative Ideals
--
Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
http://jaredp.blogspot.com/
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:v89De.56312$FP2.18652@lakeread03...
>
> "Political Pagan" <pooki...@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
> news:Xns9698706012BEpo...@69.28.186.121...
>> "Conservative Ideals" <conservat...@conservativeideals.com> wrote
>> in news:3JedneuWmfT...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> I can only imagine your parents shame raising some poor shmuck whose
>>> only idea of debate is vulgarity.
>>
>> Really, isn't that just fucking too bad for you numbnuts?
>>
>> It's still a free country, you don't like my language, killfile me.
>>
>>
>> --
>
>
> As opposed to being such an ignoramus, Pagan, why not just respond to what
> Ideals said? Unless you know you are wrong and just want to live in your
> dream world so you can believe anything you want despite the fact it is no
> true in reality . . .
Although I think there is some ego-gratification in telling off a complete
moron such as pagan, it really is a waste of time. He's like a spoiled brat
picking his nose and passing gas to get attention. Maybe he was abused as a
child - maybe he doesn't understand why people tend to ignore him soon after
meeting him, who knows why he is so dependent on being noticed by
strangers - but he does make the rather good suggestion of blocking his
posts so no more time is wasted with him. Of course, he appears to be the
type of twit that would change his moniker to get past the kill file.
Conservative Ideals
--
Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
http://jaredp.blogspot.com/
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:P5fDe.12202$NU2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
You are quite wrong on this - the "argument" is about whether or not tax
dollars should go to PBS. The military was brought in as a diversion from
the main point.
Conservative Ideals
--
Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
http://jaredp.blogspot.com/
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nufDe.12359$NU2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
You're not looking that intelligent in this exchange - arguing over military
spending would be interesting, but has nothing to do with PBS. Bringing up
something completely irrelevant to the thread and then insulting the other
person for not addressing it is a ridiculous tactic. If you can't stay
relevant to the topic, don't post. If you want to start a new thread, by
all means do so.
Conservative Ideals
--
Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
http://jaredp.blogspot.com/
"Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote in message
news:party-85EB02....@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com...
I too can make up statistics and pass them off as real. I don't because
that's just stupid.
Conservative Ideals
--
Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
http://jaredp.blogspot.com/
"Michael A. Clem" <macsnafuatintergatedotcom> wrote in message
news:11dnuic...@corp.supernews.com...
> Roger wrote:
>
>>>First, we have a four hundred dollar billon dollar deficit; and congress
>>>and the appropriations committee should be looking for opportunities to
>>>cut non-essential spending. In a world of 500 channels and the World Wide
>>>Web, government funded radio and television networks are non-essential.
>>
>>
>> $1 per person per year.
>>
>
> A dollar is still a dollar. If you're poor, every dollar counts. Is that
> figure for all Americans, including the children, or just the tax-paying
> adults?
>
>>>Second, public broadcasting is welfare for the rich. In their public
>>>defenses, officials of CPB wax elegant about giving Sesame Street and
>>>Shakespeare to poor and isolated children.
>>
>> The rich have cable.
>>
> Exactly, so they don't need public broadcasting.
>
>> The poor have broadcast TV.
>>
> And videos and dvd's. In any case, simply making public television
> available is no guarantee that they'll tune in to watch it, which is
> apparently why demographics show that public TV watchers are mostly not
> poor. So who are we subsidizing it for, once again? In any case, it was
> the FCC's own stranglehold on broadcast television that made it the 'vaste
> wasteland' that people had to live with before technology made more
> options available.
Besides, maybe if they spent more time at work or reading/furthering their
education and less time watching TV they wouldn't be so poor.
Irie
"Conservative Ideals" <conservat...@conservativeideals.com> wrote in
message news:UaKdnafuIJf...@giganews.com...
Roger would much rather avoid the topic so he can believe what he believes
despite those inconvenient facts.
Irie
"Figaro" <figa...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:e1erd1p8nl6bsf9lg...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:08:26 -0600, "Conservative Ideals"
> <conservat...@conservativeideals.com> wrote:
>
> I did just that and was vastly entertained by your glib defense of school
> vouchers.
I think you should read his statement more carefully. I don't think it was
a defense of school vouchers. The only think school vouchers do is somewhat
allow for competition to make schools better, but we would still have the
government bureaucracy wasting our money, which is pointless.
> I have just one problem with your thesis: since 85% of private schools are
> religiously
> affiliated,
So what? If people can choose the school their children get an education,
what do you care if it is religious or not?
> what is the voucher system really, other than a way to circumvent the
> constitutional barrier between church and state?
What barrier of church and state? Where is that law? Please cite.
Either way, what I believe Ideals was stating was that privatization of
schools would improve their performance because they would have to compete
for what they earn. This would create the highest quality education at the
lowest price.
> Why should anyone see their tax money
> go to support private institutions that preach dogma--religious and
> political--
> directly opposing their own beliefs?
They shouldn't. They should be able to choose the school that is right for
their values. Freedom is the key.
> I am appalled at the idea that my tax money might
> help support a private, ultra-conservative institution inculcating
> children with
> religio-social ideals that I find totally unacceptable.
In a world of competition, there is are plethora of options. If you don't
want your kids to got to the type of school you describe, then don't send
them. Today there is really only one option (unless you are willing to pay
both for someone else's kids to go to school as well as your own to a
private school), and that one option does not work.
> I may not have the right to
> prevent such a situation,
What if you had a choice?
> but the idea that I should help pay for it is absurd.
And the fact that today, we are forced to pay for a failed system is just as
absurd.
> And religion is not the only consideration. Under the voucher system, what
> is to
> prevent such notorious hate groups as the Klan from establishing private
> schools
> propped up by the voucher system?
There isn't. The question is, who would send their kids to that? And if
they would, what is preventing them from doing that today (beyond that of
schooling)?
> Or The Nation of Islam?
What is wrong with this? No all people who follow Islam are terrorist.
> Or any one of a number of
> white supremacist, anti-Semitic, or anti-Catholic hate groups who would
> find the
> voucher system a veritable bonanza.
>
When people have a choice and entities need to compete for their earnings,
we get the best possible product for our money. If people are going to
teach their kids about white supremacist, anti-Semitic, or anti-Catholic
hate, they are going to do it whether the system is public or private.
Hugh Gibbons
"Conservative Ideals" <conservat...@conservativeideals.com>
wrote:
It's not a statistic. It's an estimate. Here are some statistics.
The military budget (counting the Iraq & Afghanistan supplemental
appropriations) is $520 billion. There are about 100 million
households, so the cost of "defending" us, per household, is about $5200
per household. Seems like a lot to me.
How much of that is really needed to make America safe? I'd say about a
fifth.
Hugh Gibbons
Figaro <figa...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Under the voucher system, what is
> to
> prevent such notorious hate groups as the Klan from establishing private
> schools
> propped up by the voucher system? Or The Nation of Islam? Or any one of a
> number of
> white supremacist, anti-Semitic, or anti-Catholic hate groups who would find
> the
> voucher system a veritable bonanza.
>
And why stop there. The voucher system makes room for other
indoctrination centers too. How about public tax money supporting
a Communist Party grammar school, where your kids can learn to
revere Mao and Stalin? How AFL/CIO schools? Scientologist
schools? How about the Gay and Lesbian Task Force Middle School
and Feminist Study Institute? How about Anarchist Middle School?
(One shudders to think what THEY'D teach in Chemistry class.)
Political Pagan
in news:Op6dnUWUhPR...@giganews.com:
> You're quite right - it is a free country - why do you think I don't
> have the right to point out how incredibly deficient you are? I mean,
> really, anyone who has read any of your posts can see it for
> themselves - I'm really just pointing out the obvious (Look, the sun
> is shining. Look, political pagan is a raving moron - same thing,
> basically).
>
> You're an idiot, and I hope for the sake of future generations that
> you don't reproduce.
>
> And now for the last word, plonk.
*sniff* plonked by a jackass
--
"It's interesting. I see all these political ads and all these
commentators say it's our job as Americans to vote. Let me tell
you something, with Bush in charge of the economy, this might
be the only job you have all year." -Jay Leno
Political Pagan
news:N7fDe.56334$FP2.55518@lakeread03:
> That's right. You choose to look like a little baby who cries as
> opposed to speaking coherently. Good for you.
>
> Typical liberal.
Damned right I'm liberal, and I'm proud of it too. If it was up to assholes
like you, people would be jailed for not being Christian, for swearing in
public, or for eating the wrong foods.
This country was created by liberals, hell, even your Christ was a liberal.
You don't like freedom, then get the fuck out of the USA!
Hugh Gibbons
"Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote:
> "Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote in message
> news:party-7578D4....@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com...
> > In article <gUaDe.56318$FP2.10074@lakeread03>,
> > "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Over 80% of people who use CPB services make over $40,000 a year. They
> >> do
> >> not need tax payer subsidized news. And we are talking about 15% of the
> >> CPB's revenues.
> >
> > So the government picks up 3/4 of the tab for the 20% of the watchers
> > who can't afford to pay for themselves and the watchers who can afford
> > it pay for themselves and the remaining quarter of those who can't
> > afford to contribute. Where was thing argument going again? I forgot.
> >
> > ==> ALL COMMENTS IMO <==
>
> LOL, are you saying that in order for the CPB to survive it needs to extort
> money from people?
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it chooses to do so.
Personally, I don't care all that much. Public television would
survive without the government contribution because it has a body
of dedicated supporters. But either they would have to pony up
more, recruit more of their friends to chip in, or everybody would
see a reduction in quality of service. In my mind, that seems like a
happy trade off, since almost anything would be preferable to the
embarrassing spectacle of seeing their chiefs suck up to the crew
of know-nothings that passes for Congress these last few years.
> What about the 20% of people who cannot afford a
> Cadillac, or boat, or cable TV, or internet access or whatever. Should we
> all pool our money together for that?
You really like to change the subject, don't you?
> If so, please send me your check. I
> am sure you won't mind giving it up.
I'm certain you don't need it.
Tempest
Political Pagan wrote:
> "Conservative Ideals" <conservat...@conservativeideals.com> wrote
> in news:Op6dnUWUhPR...@giganews.com:
>
>
>>You're quite right - it is a free country - why do you think I don't
>>have the right to point out how incredibly deficient you are? I mean,
>>really, anyone who has read any of your posts can see it for
>>themselves - I'm really just pointing out the obvious (Look, the sun
>>is shining. Look, political pagan is a raving moron - same thing,
>>basically).
>>
>>You're an idiot, and I hope for the sake of future generations that
>>you don't reproduce.
>>
>>And now for the last word, plonk.
>
>
> *sniff* plonked by a jackass
Congratulations on your victory.
You got him to surrender.
--
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do,
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
- Susan B. Anthony, 1896
Tempest
Political Pagan wrote:
> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in
> news:N7fDe.56334$FP2.55518@lakeread03:
>
>
>>That's right. You choose to look like a little baby who cries as
>>opposed to speaking coherently. Good for you.
>>
>>Typical liberal.
>
>
> Damned right I'm liberal, and I'm proud of it too.
You should be, you're in good company.
Jesus Christ was a Liberal. Our founding fathers were Liberals.
The vast majority of mass murderers over history were conservatives,
including Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Saddam.
> If it was up to assholes
> like you, people would be jailed for not being Christian, for swearing in
> public, or for eating the wrong foods.
>
> This country was created by liberals, hell, even your Christ was a liberal.
>
> You don't like freedom, then get the fuck out of the USA!
We need people like him around to remind us of what can happen when a
radical ideology takes control of a nation, so that we can prevent it.
Roger
It argued that $1 dollar is too much to spend on PBS. We spend much more on
the military.
Conservative Ideals
--
Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
http://jaredp.blogspot.com/
"Figaro" <figa...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:e1erd1p8nl6bsf9lg...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:08:26 -0600, "Conservative Ideals"
> <conservat...@conservativeideals.com> wrote:
>
> I did just that and was vastly entertained by your glib defense of school
> vouchers.
> I have just one problem with your thesis: since 85% of private schools are
> religiously
> affiliated, what is the voucher system really, other than a way to
> circumvent the
> constitutional barrier between church and state?
First of all - I don't agree with your interpretation of the Church/State
barrier as applied to private schools. The justification for Public Schools
is that it provides a common good - a benefit shared by all - by providing
an educated populace that obeys civil law. I support that - I think
education is vital to the survival of any civilization. Educated kids grow
up to be smart scientists, engineers, doctors, etc that augment the standard
of living across the board. As long as a school does provide a good
education, I think any religous component of it is something between the
school and the parents. The public still gets their public good (an
educated rising generation) and parents get to send their kids to the school
of their choice that reinforces rather than tears down the values taught at
home. I find your position of forcing parents to choose between an
educational system that destroys the values taught at home or imposes the
belief system of secularism onto their children or no education at all to be
the violation of separation of Church and State.
Secondly - the idea that some people have that they can impose their belief
system onto others because they don't hold that belief system to be religous
is as much a violation of the intent of separation of Church and state as
baptizing kids without the consent of their parents. I don't care what the
basis of your beliefs are, you have no right to impose it me and you have no
right to have the government enshrine it in law. You are free to believe
what you will - religious or otherwise - as am I. Whether or not you
consider your beliefs to be religous in nature is immaterial. I fully
believe that parents have the right to decide the values their children will
be taught - and that no public bureacracy has the right to usurp that right
from the parents.
Why should anyone see their tax money
> go to support private institutions that preach dogma--religious and
> political--
> directly opposing their own beliefs?
Why should those tax dollars go to public institutions that teach dogma
directly opposing their own beliefs? In this instance I'm not so much
concerned about whether a school is private or public, but whether it is
providing a good education. If the child is getting a good basic education
in reading, writing, and 'rithmetic the public good is served and beyond
that the public DOES NOT have the right to determine that a secular
education is better for a child than a religous one. That right is reserved
to the parents. Why would you want to usurp the rights of the parents?
What do you think the justification of a school system is in the first
place? Why use public dollars for it at all? I have my own thoughts on the
subject - I'm interested to see how you justify compulsory school at public
expense. It would seem your position, if carried to its logical conclusion,
would be that parents must bear the full brunt of their children's education
and people without kids shouldn't have to contribute at all.
I am appalled at the idea that my tax money might
> help support a private, ultra-conservative institution inculcating
> children with
> religio-social ideals that I find totally unacceptable.
I'm appalled at the notion of my tax dollars going to a wasteful bureacracy
that teaches absurdly ultra-liberal ideas to children and absolutely fails
to provide the very basics in its quest to indoctrinate children into
far-left political correctness. The difference between you and I is that I
am providing a way for children to get out of failing schools, and I am
reinforcing parental rights. If parents want to send their kids to
conservative schools, good for them. If they want to send them to secular
liberal schools - they have that choice too. Imagine that, rather than
forcing parents into a system that fails their children, they are instead
given the liberty to find the best school for their children. Wow, imagine
that.
Another note to bring up - I do not think that all public schools are bad.
There are many good ones out there that parents would continue to use even
if given a choice to go elsewhere. The voucher system would force public
schools to represent the values of their communities - if they go too far to
the left or right parents will have much more clout when they complain. The
parents will actually have some power over the education of their children.
I may not have the right to
> prevent such a situation, but the idea that I should help pay for it is
> absurd.
As is the idea that I should help pay for NPR, PBS, and the NEA - that ticks
me off to no end. Bunch of liberal whiners in my book.
> And religion is not the only consideration. Under the voucher system, what
> is to
> prevent such notorious hate groups as the Klan from establishing private
> schools
> propped up by the voucher system? Or The Nation of Islam? Or any one of a
> number of
> white supremacist, anti-Semitic, or anti-Catholic hate groups who would
> find the
> voucher system a veritable bonanza.
There are already laws in place that make these groups liable if they incite
violence. However, I do strongly believe in the fundamental liberty of free
belief. Even if I don't agree with you, even if I think your plum insane,
it is still your right to teach your kids what you will. When you, or they,
violate the rights of others then you suffer the consequences. If your
teachings directly cause your children to violate the rights of others, you
bear responsibility/liability for that as well. Free belief is fundamental
to a free society. I may think you're a complete idiot - but it is your
right to be so. I do not have the right to use the government to force my
ideals down your throat - and that's what scares me about liberals. They
think they do have that right.
To Summarize -
An educated public is a public good, so we all bear responsiblity for the
cost since we all benefit.
Apart from that, as long as the public gets the good it is paying for, it
has no rights to dictate the values that parents can teach their children.
Parents have the right to send their children to schools that will reinforce
the values the parents hold - no one has the right to compel kids to schools
that teach the opposite of what the parents believe.
(Of course there are exceptions - such as an abusive or neglectful parent -
but those are red herrings).
>
> Figaro
>
>
Conservative Ideals
--
Visit my Blog "Conservative Ideals" at:
http://jaredp.blogspot.com/
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:szkDe.13929$NU2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Yes, but then - the military is vital for the survival of our way of life -
it is a necessary public good. PBS has no more right to take a dollar of my
money without my consent as a mugger on the street. "Oh, he only stole
$20 - well, you can do without $20..." The amount isn't the issue, the
right to compel someone to give up their money is the point.
>
>
Political Pagan
news:42DDCFF8...@hotmail.com:
>
>
> Political Pagan wrote:
>> "Irie" <Ir...@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in
>> news:N7fDe.56334$FP2.55518@lakeread03:
>>
>>
>>>That's right. You choose to look like a little baby who cries as
>>>opposed to speaking coherently. Good for you.
>>>
>>>Typical liberal.
>>
>>
>> Damned right I'm liberal, and I'm proud of it too.
>
>
> You should be, you're in good company.
You bet I am.
> Jesus Christ was a Liberal. Our founding fathers were Liberals.
To me, Jesus was nothing more than a man who had good ideas, ideas that
have been corrupted over the centuries to bring ugliness into power.
>
> The vast majority of mass murderers over history were conservatives,
> including Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Saddam.
Don't forget Mussolini, Marcos.....
>> If it was up to assholes
>> like you, people would be jailed for not being Christian, for
>> swearing in public, or for eating the wrong foods.
>>
>> This country was created by liberals, hell, even your Christ was a
>> liberal.
>>
>> You don't like freedom, then get the fuck out of the USA!
>
>
> We need people like him around to remind us of what can happen when a
> radical ideology takes control of a nation, so that we can prevent it.
>
We better do something to prevent it soon, or we will be looking at
internment camps for anyone opposed to the regime.