James Yeager vs: Allen Combs

[Destro]

It IS however, very liberally BIASED. As we saw from the undercover video tape.

so what? Does being around liberals make you uncomfortable? I enjoy going to the symphony, and im sure 90% of the people there disagree with 90% of my views. Doesn't make the experience any less enjoyable. Same with NPR.

 

[Destro]

Seems if the govt is supplying so little of NPRs money, then it seems both moral and a minimal hardship to end it entirely.

My personal argument against defunding NPR is that I enjoy the limited advertising

 

[pudly]

My personal argument against defunding NPR is that I enjoy the limited advertising

That's no argument at all. You are simply acknowledging that you benefit from taking other people's money to spend on something you want. It is not a valid reason to take my tax dollars.

Edit: Since NPR "only gets 2% of their income from tax dollars", it would only need to add approximately 2% to their limited advertising. Still no reason that tax dollars should be used.

 

[Destro]

That's no argument at all.

exactly

 

[billt]

so what? Does being around liberals make you uncomfortable?

Yes it does. I don't care to listen to a communistic viewpoint. It's bad enough we have a freedom robbing, sitting President trying to ram it down everyone's throat. I don't want to hear it when I'm trying to relax at home or in my car. In short, I don't appreciate in the least what they have to say, simply because the bulk of it has been proven not to work...Ever.

 

[billt]

I enjoy going to the symphony, and im sure 90% of the people there disagree with 90% of my views.

That's because when you go to the Symphony, you are listening to the music.....Not the viewpoints of the audience, or the people playing the instruments.

 

[jamil]

"But almost one-quarter – 23 percent – of the money NPR gets comes from the taxpayers...."

Read more at NPR?s actual tax funding much more than 1% lie

Public Radio Finances : NPR

It's true that some of the "other" sources mentioned include some public funding. But to get to the 23 percent figure they had to include the tax deductions people take for donating. If that's tax payer funding, then would you agree that churches, whose donars may claim deductions for tithes and offerings, are funded by taxpayers?

Seems if the govt is supplying so little of NPRs money, then it seems both moral and a minimal hardship to end it entirely.

I agree with ending all public funding of all public radio/television. However, I would not want to see tax deductions end for donars, until all tax deductions are eliminated for everything and for every tax payer.

 

[billt]

Public Radio Finances : NPR

It's true that some of the "other" sources mentioned include some public funding. But to get to the 23 percent figure they had to include the tax deductions people take for donating. If that's tax payer funding, then would you agree that churches, whose donars may claim deductions for tithes and offerings, are funded by taxpayers?

Yes. Churches, much like the government, produce nothing. They can't give anything to anyone that they first don't take away from someone else.

 

[jamil]

You may not agree with the deduction, but deductions aren't public funding.

 

[billt]

You may not agree with the deduction, but deductions aren't public funding.

Regardless of how you want to spin it, NPR like most liberal crap, would never exist on it's own merit. Without someone, somehow pumping funding into it, it would collapse, period.

 

[Destro]

Without someone, somehow pumping funding into it, it would collapse, period.

Like advertisers?

Wikipedia says

According to a 2009 Washington Post article, about 20.9 million listeners tune into NPR each week. The average listener is 49 years old, and earns an annual household income (HHI) of US $93,000.


If they cut funding, fine. I will just have to put up with commercials for things I cannot realistically afford. Or just be stuck listening to pledge time 4 times a year.

 

[jamil]

Regardless of how you want to spin it, NPR like most liberal crap, would never exist on it's own merit. Without someone, somehow pumping funding into it, it would collapse, period.

I'm not trying to spin anything. If you've read what else I've had to say, you should know that I do not support government funding of NPR. Tax deductions are not public funding. Getting or not getting a tax deduction does not increase or decrease the funds that the government gives NPR.

 

[billt]

I'm not trying to spin anything. If you've read what else I've had to say, you should know that I do not support government funding of NPR. Tax deductions are not public funding. Getting or not getting a tax deduction does not increase or decrease the funds that the government gives NPR.

Why is this always the case with all of these liberal organizations? Why can't they exist on their own credentials? Be it through advertising or whatever. It seems everyone of them, be it NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood, etc. all have to rely on donations or Federal money in order to survive. As I said, if the product they were selling was so wonderful, it wouldn't be needed. They would be making money hand over fist. Many people who support these organizations also will say this. Yet as soon as anyone mentions turning off the government spigot, let the screaming begin.

This is how communism works. This whole, "all for the common good" mentality. NPR is a liberal organization. Always was, is now, and always will be. If you even suggest a viewpoint that doesn't fall lock step into their communistic philosophy, they'll run your ass out on a rail. Much like they did Juan Williams. I don't much care for the guy, but all he did was state a personal opinion that went against NPR's communist doctrine, and he was fired because of it. I just don't see how anyone would want any part of a group like that. Christ, even Fox keeps Alan Combs on the payroll. Why, I have no idea. I guess they need someone to keep puking out the liberal point of view, so people won't forget how bad it is. At least he's only on for a few minutes. I can always mute it while I take a leak.

 

[jamil]

Why is this always the case with all of these liberal organizations? Why can't they exist on their own credentials? Be it through advertising or whatever. It seems everyone of them, be it NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood, etc. all have to rely on donations or Federal money in order to survive. As I said, if the product they were selling was so wonderful, it wouldn't be needed. They would be making money hand over fist. Many people who support these organizations also will say this. Yet as soon as anyone mentions turning off the government spigot, let the screaming begin.

This is how communism works. This whole, "all for the common good" mentality. NPR is a liberal organization. Always was, is now, and always will be. If you even suggest a viewpoint that doesn't fall lock step into their communistic philosophy, they'll run your ass out on a rail. Much like they did Juan Williams. I don't much care for the guy, but all he did was state a personal opinion that went against NPR's communist doctrine, and he was fired because of it. I just don't see how anyone would want any part of a group like that. Christ, even Fox keeps Alan Combs on the payroll. Why, I have no idea. I guess they need someone to keep puking out the liberal point of view, so people won't forget how bad it is. At least he's only on for a few minutes. I can always mute it while I take a leak.

The idea of public radio is precisely so that shows which couldn't make it in a typical commercial market can still be available. My son liked watching PBS kids when he was young, which has some pretty descent programming.

But shows like Cyberchase, which teaches math and logical thinking, can't compete with drivel like Power Rangers and whateverthehell else kids watch these days. But I'm glad that show was aired.

I'm not opposed to the idea of public TV or public radio model, where stations and programming exist through the donations of of private individuals and companies that want to have the alternative. I just don't think tax payers should have to fund it.

 

[billt]

I'm not opposed to the idea of public TV or public radio model, where stations and programming exist through the donations of of private individuals and companies that want to have the alternative. I just don't think tax payers should have to fund it.

I agree here. I can't fault public donations for public broadcasting, anymore than I could for the NRA. If a group of individuals want to band together to support something they all believe in, that's fine. But none of them, NRA included, should get a single dime of taxpayer money. It's already been proven that Planned Parenthood uses government taxpayer funds it receives to fund abortions. I don't care which side of the fence you're on regarding that issue, that's nonsense.

 

[Destro]

Be it through advertising or whatever. It seems everyone of them, be it NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood, etc. all have to rely on donations or Federal money in order to survive.

Well I don't know about Planned Parenthood's business model, but commercial advertising on PBS and NPR is not allowed.

 

[billt]

Well I don't know about Planned Parenthood's business model, but commercial advertising on PBS and NPR is not allowed.

It should be.....Providing they could even get any.

 

[pudly]

Well I don't know about Planned Parenthood's business model, but commercial advertising on PBS and NPR is not allowed.

By whom?

 

[Crbn79]

Well I don't know about Planned Parenthood's business model, but commercial advertising on PBS and NPR is not allowed.

Commercial advertising is not allowed because of how the Govt funding and non-profit status are setup with those particular channels.

As for the original topic, why exactly do Federal administrative entities like the BLM or IRS need their own strategic response team? If nothing else it's an overlap of funding and fat which can be trimmed.

 

[Steve.43]

Why is this always the case with all of these liberal organizations? Why can't they exist on their own credentials? Be it through advertising or whatever. It seems everyone of them, be it NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood, etc. all have to rely on donations or Federal money in order to survive. As I said, if the product they were selling was so wonderful, it wouldn't be needed. They would be making money hand over fist. Many people who support these organizations also will say this. Yet as soon as anyone mentions turning off the government spigot, let the screaming begin.

This is how communism works. This whole, "all for the common good" mentality. NPR is a liberal organization. Always was, is now, and always will be. If you even suggest a viewpoint that doesn't fall lock step into their communistic philosophy, they'll run your ass out on a rail. Much like they did Juan Williams. I don't much care for the guy, but all he did was state a personal opinion that went against NPR's communist doctrine, and he was fired because of it. I just don't see how anyone would want any part of a group like that. Christ,even Fox keeps Alan Combs on the payroll. Why, I have no idea. I guess they need someone to keep puking out the liberal point of view, so people won't forget how bad it is. At least he's only on for a few minutes. I can always mute it while I take a leak.

I think to appear to be "fair and balanced," they keep a few lefties on board to be assassinated daily on the air. Colmes and Bob Beckel come to mind.