Christieends Soviet style broadcasting

I think the core issue in this is that you think that news-gathering and education should be a business enterprise, and I believe that it should be a viable function of a government. Without quality education and a press that is free from the propaganda that will naturally occur when news-gathering is left to the forces of the marketplace, then every bit of information/power will be controlled by the filthy rich. When the news becomes a commodity that is bought and sold, we certainly won't have a free press anymore, will we? In fact, we will have a press that is ever more sensational, confrontational, and so darn entertaining, it's almost like a circus. Except on PBS and NPR. Yes, you're correct, tax-payers money should not be used to subsidize an organization that is competing against other organizations in the marketplace. That's just it, PBS and NPR are not competing against anybody.

And if you are so against government subsidies for a program that helps all citizens of this country, why aren't you against farm subsidies and oil subsidies that are purely helping one faction of the economy at the expense of many other private enterprises.

To answer your question, I am 100% against giving one dime to oil companies, farmers, auto companies, financial institutions or any other for profit entity. How is it a legitimate function of government to take money from me that I worked to make and give it to another person or company? That is theft, plain and simple.
Once again, IMHO NPR and PBS would be fine as not for profits. If they only receive 3% of their funding from government then I hardly think they would miss the money. Then we would not have to borrow that money from the Chinese and we could move closer to the model of government that our founding fathers invisioned.

Why isn't IW against public schools? Maybe he is.

I have no problem with public education. I have a huge problem with the federal government being involved in public education. The Constitution does not give the Federal Government any authority over education nor does it authorize spending tax dollars on education.
Education would be far better served if the local school board had total control over funding, curriculum, hiring/firing of personnel and what those personnel are paid.

Just because NPR provides commercial free childrens education and straight forward news reporting that doesn't reinforce yours or anyones preconcieved political viewpoints is no reason to deny this service to the rest of the tax paying public.

No one is trying to "deny this service" to anyone. For all you know I am a contributor and listener. All I want is for the service to be not for profit and receive no taxpayer funds. Since ya'll point out that taxpayers only account for 3% of their funding I cannot see where the loss of said funding will cause their demise.

No one is trying to "deny this service" to anyone. For all you know I am a contributor and listener. All I want is for the service to be not for profit and receive no taxpayer funds. Since ya'll point out that taxpayers only account for 3% of their funding I cannot see where the loss of said funding will cause their demise.

You're right again! Since it does seem to be a small pittance in both the overall operating costs of PBS and the Federal Budget, why are you making it into such a big boogieman? Why don't you tackle big budget items like out of control military spending, huge oil company subsidies, and food subsidies to huge agricultual mega-corporations?

You're right again! Since it does seem to be a small pittance in both the overall operating costs of PBS and the Federal Budget, why are you making it into such a big boogieman? Why don't you tackle big budget items like out of control military spending, huge oil company subsidies, and food subsidies to huge agricultual mega-coporations?

I am not making it a "boogieman." The story was that a government official had moved his state closer to the limited government we must return to in order to survive as a nation. I will be honored to post the story when another government figure cuts oil company welfare, mega-farm welfare, or finally gets us out of unnecessary wars and begins the process of closing overseas bases and bringing our troops home. But no step towards fiscal sanity is too small and every "small pitance" is a positive move forward.


Now let me ask you the flipside; if government funding is such a small pitance why do liberals fight so hard to keep giving them tax money? seems like it would be more trouble than it is worth.

Cost savings: $0
Projected jobs lost or endangered: 9,000
Republicans who voted against the bill: 7
Democrats who voted against the bill: 185
Percent of voters who are against it: 70

Crippling a popular public program in an election year: priceless!

I have no problem with public education. I have a huge problem with the federal government being involved in public education. The Constitution does not give the Federal Government any authority over education nor does it authorize spending tax dollars on education.
Education would be far better served if the local school board had total control over funding, curriculum, hiring/firing of personnel and what those personnel are paid.

Sounds like you would have no problem with the state funding public media. Living in this part of the country, it is beyond me how you could have a greater fear of federal propaganda than state propaganda. Which brings me to my next issue. You may have notice that certain states are allowing school curriculums to adopt teachings that erroneously rewrite history, totally mangle science, and allow religion to creep in. If that's not a cry out for federal oversight, then I don't know what is. Which brings me back to my other point, fear the state if you live in places like Florida, Texas and other Okie pits.

Sounds like you would have no problem with the state funding public media. Living in this part of the country, it is beyond me how you could have a greater fear of federal propaganda than state propaganda. Which brings me to my next issue. You may have notice that certain states are allowing school curriculums to adopt teachings that erroneously rewrite history, totally mangle science, and allow religion to creep in. If that's not a cry out for federal oversight, then I don't know what is. Which brings me back to my other point, fear the state if you live in places like Florida, Texas and other Okie pits.

Wait, LS, what am I suppose to fear today? Oh, I know, I'll call the RNC...I believe the number is 1-800- BOOGIEMAN.

Sounds like you would have no problem with the state funding public media. Living in this part of the country, it is beyond me how you could have a greater fear of federal propaganda than state propaganda. Which brings me to my next issue. You may have notice that certain states are allowing school curriculums to adopt teachings that erroneously rewrite history, totally mangle science, and allow religion to creep in. If that's not a cry out for federal oversight, then I don't know what is. Which brings me back to my other point, fear the state if you live in places like Florida, Texas and other Okie pits.

You don't have to live here if you don't like the political environment you know. That's the beauty of letting states manage things vs. the federal government. You can eaily move to a different state, it's bit harder to give up your country.

Here's a nice little writeup on the concept of states' rights.


http://www.everything2.com/?node=states%27+rights

The weaker notion of States' Rights as a metaphor for decentralized government is admirable. However, as with most "conservative" philosophies, the doctrine of State's Rights is sugar-coating on a hidden agenda. A person invoking it is usually rationalizing a less virtuous motive.

In this case, it is the fact that a bully can more easily bully and oppress a smaller group of people as opposed to a larger group of people, especially if there's nobody bigger (i.e. the federal government) to stop him/her.

"States' Rights" was invoked to justify slavery, secession, and later, segregation. The Ku Klux Klan actually ran Indiana in the 1920's.

Here's a nice little writeup on the concept of states' rights.


http://www.everything2.com/?node=states%27+rights

I completely disagree with that assessment. The closer people are to the government body that represents them, the more control they have over that body. How much access do you have to the United States Congress? How much access do you have to the BCC?

I completely disagree with that assessment. The closer people are to the government body that represents them, the more control they have over that body. How much access do you have to the United States Congress? How much access do you have to the BCC?

I reiterate:

In this case, it is the fact that a bully can more easily bully and oppress a smaller group of people as opposed to a larger group of people, especially if there's nobody bigger (i.e. the federal government) to stop him/her.