Discussion: FOX News II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fair enough. I do appreciate public radio and television, but to each their own. NPR humiliated themselves this week and I do not think Juan should have been fired. I never cared for Williams, but he did not do anything that deserved termination and I imagine the fact that he goes on shows like O'Reilly, Hannity and Fox News Sunday to be the liberal whipping boy is why they really fired him...and they shouldn't have.

With that said, I don't want to dismantle a genuinely solid news organization that usually avoids sensationalism because...Fox News wants to end it. But just my opinion.

I don't want to dismantle a genuinely solid news organization because Fox News wants it to end, I want to dismantle a genuinely solid news organization because there is no moral justification for using tax funds for a television or radio channel.

NPR receives no direct federal funding. About 10% of its revenue comes from so-called "Grants and Contributions," and an argument could *possibly* be made that an additional 4% comes from CPB (but that would be a stretch, and that is also indirect).

NPR is an independent, self-supporting media organization.

I understand that, but there should be no tax money of any kind given to NPR. It's a disgusting abuse of government power. It's stealing from people to pay for entertainment they have no interest in. I don't care how good the entertainment is.
 
But if you don't contribute then everything else good about NPR gets thrown out as well. How is that not throwing out the baby? Is this one instance of a large donor and your theories that he had something to do with it worth cutting NPR's funding?


:thing: :doom: :thing:


That's my choice, if others make the same choice as me. So be it...
 
I am sure it is rolf worthy to her if you watch Olbermann or Mathews.

Nah, neither of them have the financial intelligence that Cavuto has....they definitely should be in the same category as Beck though...especially Matthews, Olbermann not so bad.



I have to say though....one good thing about all of this. Juan Williams will be on more the round tables on the Sunday shows on FNC. So that's good...
 
I understand that, but there should be no tax money of any kind given to NPR. It's a disgusting abuse of government power. It's stealing from people to pay for entertainment they have no interest in. I don't care how good the entertainment is.
Okay, but don't make it sound as though it's funded in any large part by the government. It isn't. In fact, I take issue with your use of the word "stealing." How are they stealing, exactly? I'm not convinced you understand how NPR actually obtains its funding, or how the government contributes. :huh:
 
Last edited:
It depends on where the station is, there are some in urban areas that are funded up to 70%.....others as little as 2 or 3%.
 
lmao, are you kidding? really?

Air America ring a bell?


It is hard to know how much exactly comes from government funding which is primarily through the CPB....it makes so many twists and turns, it is hard to follow.

Stations receive anywhere from 10% of their budget to upwards of 70% from CPB depending on their location, urban, rural, minority communities etc.

Also, that doesn't include state government funding, funding from state universities, and government grants given.

I guess Soros could buy NPR, that would keep it afloat.

I wonder if the NAACP will go after NPR?

Funded by whom, Kel?

....
 
70%???

Wow. Where can my station get this grant? Cause 70% would be great! I can finally do the Old Time Radio Show I've been wanting to do.


:doom: :doom: :doom:
 
70%???

Wow. Where can my station get this grant? Cause 70% would be great! I can finally do the Old Time Radio Show I've been wanting to do.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

I would assume that those are in very poor urban areas that get little if any public donations....as in, "from individual donors".
 
The CPB. Which is not the government.
It is a private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress in 1967, and is the steward of the federal government's investment in public broadcasting.
 
It is a private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress in 1967, and is the steward of the federal government's investment in public broadcasting.
The government isn't their sole source of income, nor the sole source of the money they award.
 
The government isn't their sole source of income, nor the sole source of the money they award.

I don't believe I have said that, ever.

My point, at the basics is this....

The government should cut off all money of any kind to anything like this....and let Soros give all the money he wants to it.


Let him own NPR for all I care, but I do not think that ANY tax dollars in any form should used in this manner.

That's pretty much it....
 
Okay, but don't make it sound as though it's funded in any large part by the government. It isn't. In fact, I take issue with your use of the word "stealing." How are they stealing, exactly? I'm not convinced you understand how NPR actually obtains its funding, or how the government contributes. :huh:

In this case stealing = taxs (involuntarily money exchanges enforced by the point of a gun) intended for services like NPR. Government gets it's money from such taxes. The fact government contributes at all is the problem.
 
I don't believe I have said that, ever.

My point, at the basics is this....

The government should cut off all money of any kind to anything like this....and let Soros give all the money he wants to it.


Let him own NPR for all I care, but I do not think that ANY tax dollars in any form should used in this manner.

That's pretty much it....
So how would you suggest they go about pulling their funding? Stop funding the CPB? Have the CPB stop funding NPR entirely, even though most of that money probably didn't come from tax dollars (and there's no way to tell which monies are tax revenues and which aren't)?

My point earlier was that you were being incredibly (suspiciously, actually) vague about your figures. I was making an argument about government funding and you throw out a figure about the CPB's funding of local stations. I hope you see why I was trying to make a distinction, because the implication behind your post seemed to be that all of those funds were from the government (given the context of our discussion and your failing to mention the CPB).


In this case stealing = taxs (involuntarily money exchanges enforced by the point of a gun) intended for services like NPR. Government gets it's money from such taxes. The fact government contributes at all is the problem.
So, really, your argument boils down to the same anti-tax ******** the right has been spewing for years.

Got it.

Where was your outrage with the situation before Williams' firing?
 
Last edited:
So how would you suggest they go about pulling their funding? Stop funding the CPB? Have the CPB stop funding NPR entirely, even though most of that money probably didn't come from tax dollars (and there's no way to tell which monies are tax revenues and which aren't)?

My point earlier was that you were being incredibly (suspiciously, actually) vague about your figures. I was making an argument about government funding and you throw out a figure about the CPB's funding of local stations. I hope you see why I was trying to make a distinction, because the implication behind your post seemed to be that all of those funds were from the government (given the context of our discussion and your failing to mention the CPB).

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be vague, the numbers are from the CPB website...and they are very general, that is pretty much how it is stated.

Depending on location a station can receive anywhere from 3%-10%-70%... I didn't know any other way to put it.

Honestly, I'm not sure how they need to pull the funds. Whatever allocation from the government, and I believe it was stated last night on an evening political show.....I think it was Greta....was that around 500 million is for lack of a specific number is sent. So, cut that....let them continue to pull their private funding, as I said, let Soros buy the thing...I have no problem with that.
 
So, really, your argument boils down to the same anti-tax ******** the right has been spewing for years.

Got it.

Where was your outrage with the situation before Williams' firing?

While I wouldn't necessarily call it "outrage", I've always held that same position with NPR. I could personally careless about the Williams' firing because I thought what he said was stupid. The only reason I opined in this thread was by making the point that the "public" aspect of NPR DOES change how one has to defend the actions of it's leadership.

A "public" sector institution has to be run different than a "private" one due to the difference in ownership.
 
Progressives aren't socialists, and they aren't communists - they are fascists. (and I am not even sure I would put Kennedy in that list)

However you would be correct in saying that in spite of their fascist ideology, we are not in Mussolini's Italy. That can be attributed to the inherent American belief in liberty. I believe that the majority of Americans are libertarian, they just don't know anything about it.

When Woodrow Wilson enacted radical fascist policy duing WWI, American's made sure it was repealed after the conflict.

After FDR's massive expansion of government, the Republican Party made massive gains and were able to repeal most of the largest programs (such as the TVA and NRA).

Johnson's Administration massive government policies is what cost the Democratic Party the South. He is who got Nixon elected. The combination of policy between Johnson, Nixon and Carter created the Reagan Revolution.

The combined policies of Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama has created the Tea Party.

American's resist statism.

fas·cism –noun


1. ( sometimes initial capital letter
thinsp.png
) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
World English Dictionary

1. fascism — n 1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism

2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc 3. prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism [C20: from Italian fascismo , from fascio political group, from Latin fascis bundle; see fasces ]


If President Obama was a Fascist he would have had the military open fire on TEA partiers. The above definitions are from Dictionary.com
 
There is a political spectrum AG, and we all fall somewhere on that spectrum, not at one end or the other....

Its not a debate of extremes that SN is engaged in, it is a debate of where he believes Obama falls on that political spectrum.
 
There is a political spectrum AG, and we all fall somewhere on that spectrum, not at one end or the other....

Its not a debate of extremes that SN is engaged in, it is a debate of where he believes Obama falls on that political spectrum.

Thats the problem when someone uses the words fascist, socialist, or communist they are trying to illicit an emotional response to vilify or malign when in actuality the terms dont apply. Most people are not going to research what something actually means Yes President Obama leans left be he is not so far left that he is a socilist or a communist as they are defined and Bush leaned right but he was not so far right as to be a fascist as the word is defined.

I am disgusted by the rancor and vitriol that is present in our political discourse. People are so extreme on both sides that no common ground can be found.
 
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that promotes the community before the individual and utilizes a mixed economy referred to as "the third way". It's a collectivist ideology.

That is Progressivism to a T.

Fascism got the label of "right wing" because of it's "opposition" to Communism. The reality is that Communism and Fascism aren't all that different and most of the Nazi Youth's were Communists before they were fascists and that the "opposition" came because Fascists and Communists were competing for the same supporters.

The "Right Wing" label, especially in American Political Terms, is obviously not appropriate to any reasonable evaluation of the word. The "Right/Left" wing label comes from the French Revolution where Reactionaries were Right Wing and Revolutionaries Left Wing. In America, the Reactionaries are "Classical Liberals" (today called Libertarians) while the Revolutionaries are "Neo (FDR) Liberals, Socialists and Communists". (Note even the definition you provide notes an opposition to "liberalism"). Therefore, in the American Right/Left axis, Fascism would be soundly Left Wing (which is why I argue Neoconservatism isn't a Right Wing ideology).

Furthermore look at the economics of Germany, the Welfare State (you know, like we have now) stems from Bismark's economic policies that Hitler sought to replicate. Regulation of industry was a fascist/corportist concept (the idea being that businesses were private, but they had to follow the instructions and rules of teh government - thus the title of the "third way" between socialism and (true, lassiez-faire capitalism).
 
No, he is giving his opinion. It is you that is putting the emotion behind his words.

Common ground is not always solid ground.
 
Thats the problem when someone uses the words fascist, socialist, or communist they are trying to illicit an emotional response to vilify or malign when in actuality the terms dont apply. Most people are not going to research what something actually means Yes President Obama leans left be he is not so far left that he is a socilist or a communist as they are defined and Bush leaned right but he was not so far right as to be a fascist as the word is defined.

I am disgusted by the rancor and vitriol that is present in our political discourse. People are so extreme on both sides that no common ground can be found.

The difference is that I don't interchange the word "Fascist" for "Nazi" (in fact many scholars would tell you that Hitler and Nazism wasn't Fascist). Fascism isn't evil, Hitler was evil. I am not "name calling" or trying to illicit an emotional response (okay...maybe that's not totally true) but it's not an act of vilification.
 
My favorite historical figure is Alexander Hamilton.

I believe the man was an incredibly brilliant, compassionate, talented, heroic, awesome human being. I believe he is the most important man to have existed since the 18th Century.

I also believe he was a fascist.

I believe Abraham Lincoln was a fascist. I believe FDR was a fascist. I know Woodrow Wilson was a fascist. I believe George W. was a fascist.

Does that help?
 
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that promotes the community before the individual and utilizes a mixed economy referred to as "the third way". It's a collectivist ideology.

That is Progressivism to a T.

Fascism got the label of "right wing" because of it's "opposition" to Communism. The reality is that Communism and Fascism aren't all that different and most of the Nazi Youth's were Communists before they were fascists and that the "opposition" came because Fascists and Communists were competing for the same supporters.

The "Right Wing" label, especially in American Political Terms, is obviously not appropriate to any reasonable evaluation of the word. The "Right/Left" wing label comes from the French Revolution where Reactionaries were Right Wing and Revolutionaries Left Wing. In America, the Reactionaries are "Classical Liberals" (today called Libertarians) while the Revolutionaries are "Neo (FDR) Liberals, Socialists and Communists". (Note even the definition you provide notes an opposition to "liberalism"). Therefore, in the American Right/Left axis, Fascism would be soundly Left Wing (which is why I argue Neoconservatism isn't a Right Wing ideology).

Furthermore look at the economics of Germany, the Welfare State (you know, like we have now) stems from Bismark's economic policies that Hitler sought to replicate. Regulation of industry was a fascist/corportist concept (the idea being that businesses were private, but they had to follow the instructions and rules of teh government - thus the title of the "third way" between socialism and (true, lassiez-faire capitalism).

Socilism on the political spectrum is between cpitalism and communism. Hitler rose to power because the allies unfairly crippled Germany. Hitler needed someone to blame to unify the German people behind him so that he could exercise his desire for power. Hiler and Goebles told the German people were the reason that their life was not as good as it should be was because of the Jews thus making them the villains and objects of the bane and contempt of the Germain people. He made them less than human so that their mistreatment, murder, and abuse would be looked over and dismissed.

Industry has to be regulated to some extent becuse in the persuit of the dollar people will be stepped on and in some cases crushed. Corporations should not be allowed to discriminate based on color and gender. Corporations should not be allowed to dump toxic waste into rivers and streams or into the atmosphere. There has to be some sort of regulation.

Multi-million dollar corporations are not altruist they do not have the best interest of people at heart their interest is money.

Public schools are not all bad and private schools are not all good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,535
Messages
21,755,208
Members
45,591
Latest member
MartyMcFly1985
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"