Npr Busted!
-
I'd agree with that dude.
-
But to pretend this is a serious budgetary issue is also a joke.
It's all about keeping the middle class stupid and maintaining corporate control over as much as possible. Net neutrality, PBS, NPR, it's all the same. Make a big deal out of nothing, rile up your uneducated fanbase, and rake in the profits because they're louder than most everyone on the left. It's about time, though, that people on the left are standing up because they're pissed off. I'm happy to see the turnout that the Stewart/Colbert rally had, and I'm ecstatic about the number of people that are pissed off over Governor Walker's stubborn attempt to take away bargaining rights of teachers. If only these lazy assholes would have voted instead of just waiting til it affected them.
The problem with the Tea Party, in my opinion, is that they see the government as the big, bad wolf, and in a sense, the worst corporation that could possibly exist. Well, what do they think is gonna happen if the corporations get control of this? We'd only be getting news like CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. The internet would change such that it'd be more favorable for friends and allies of these businesses. Government regulation isn't the anti-Christ.
It's all about keeping the middle class stupid and maintaining corporate control over as much as possible. Net neutrality, PBS, NPR, it's all the same. Make a big deal out of nothing, rile up your uneducated fanbase, and rake in the profits because they're louder than most everyone on the left.
I don't think it's that. It's much simpler. There isn't much difference between people like Steve King and Louie Golmert and Michelle Bachmann and Trent Franks and Sarah Palin and Peter King and James Inhofe and Jeff Sessions and Mike Pence and Jim Demint and your average Fox News viewer.
These are not very bright people. They think this stuff really is a big deal.
-
Heh.
One might notice that many of the former cash cows of the "conservative" movement are mad that the new guys are eating into their turf.
Don't worry, sooner or later teh Fox gang will carp at whoever takes the mantle from them....
And the lefties will reminisce about the good old days.
WSS
-
I was hoping that we were going to start heading back to the middle, but I'm afraid you're right. There seems to be no end to the trajectory.
-
The middle?
That, old buddy, is rich.
WSS
-
1. Heck, you are NOT the middle. You are the way, whiney, lalaland left.
2. NPR has been getting GOV FUNDS - our tax dollars. Fox does not. That is a big difference. Can you see the difference, Heck?
3. Fox is brilliantly conservative in opinion, but also brilliantly fair and balanced - on the news. Even on Hannity's show, etc,,
there are way left guests who spout off like crazy. That doesn't happen on MSNBC, or CNN, or NPR, or not much.
4. I've watched the news on Fox, then turned to CNN. The taint of bigontry and bias was all over CNN. It was disgusting.
5. I turned CNN off our favorites list.
6. NPR is a bought and paid for liberal bastion of bigotry. See Juan Williams and the hateful lies by the heads of NPR. They resigned for good reason, btw.
7. Heck and Vapor - when Sheply was here, he was constantly saying stuff like "the Republican party is dead" or something like that. I said no, the American
people will just shift the course of our good ship American to being back on course. And the midterm elections proved I was correct.
8. ObaMao is a failed president. Even high ranking Dems are coming out and criticizing his lack of leadership. We told you - he set a record for voting "present".
But you wouldn't listen.
9. In the last thirty days, ObaMao's approval rating has plummeted ten points - among independent voters. It's now 37 percent. That's very bad.
10. You can't solve poverty by growing entitlements bigger. LBJ couldn't do it. FDR couldn't do it. Carter couldnt do it. Bill Clinton couldn't do it, and ObaMao can't do it.
But the Dems sure love the poor's votes coming their way every election. Sick how that works, eh?
11. The left is in all out revolution hate mode. Their arrogance has gone over the edge. I mean, seriously - Pelosi says "We have to pass the hc bill, so that we can
find out what's in it"... ring a bell? Oh, but Pelosi is really smart, eh? But Palin, etc, aren't very bright? LOL. More nonsense slurs toward conservatives.
12. ObaMao isn't very bright either, unless he is, then you have to admit he is a flagrant liar and con man, and a corrupt despot would be, bought and paid for by the left.
He said he'd close Gitmo. Nope. He now, just two days ago, declared in his Pres order, that he can keep a Gitmo prisoner there for how ever long he wants, EVEN
if they are acquitted in court.
13. It goes on and on and on and on and .... get it?
-
The middle?
That, old buddy, is rich.
WSS
The middle?
That, old buddy, is rich.
WSS
Talking about the Republicans. Who don't think Orrin Hatch is conservative enough.
Orrin Hatch.
And yeah, I consider myself a centrist Democrat. Very much so. Objectively, that's where I'd rank.
-
The middle?
That, old buddy, is rich.
WSS
Talking about the Republicans. Who don't think Orrin Hatch is conservative enough.
Orrin Hatch.
And yeah, I consider myself a centrist Democrat. Very much so. Objectively, that's where I'd rank.
Talking about the Republicans. Who don't think Orrin Hatch is conservative enough.
Orrin Hatch.
I've always been a fan.
So if W had nominated him for the SC do you think he'd have faced stiff opposition?
And yeah, I consider myself a centrist Democrat. Very much so. Objectively, that's where I'd rank.
-
I would hope so. Orrin Hatch isn't some sort of titan in the legal world. It'd be like trying to put Joe Biden on the Supreme Court.
-
I would hope so. Orrin Hatch isn't some sort of titan in the legal world. It'd be like trying to put Joe Biden on the Supreme Court.
I would hope so. Orrin Hatch isn't some sort of titan in the legal world. It'd be like trying to put Joe Biden on the Supreme Court.
Granted he's no Elena Kagan....
WSS
-
No, clearly not.
-
No, clearly not.
No, clearly not.
Why, there's a big R by his name, plain as day!
How did I miss that???
WSS
-
You really want me to put their legal resumes next to each other? Or perhaps you can look them up yourself.
Yes, clearly there's no difference beyond the party affiliation. You've got me. In your head and nowhere else.
However, his legal resume is very similar to Joe Biden's. Would you want Joe Biden on the Supreme Court? I wouldn't. Because he's not qualified.
-
Qualifications took a backseat to ideology right around the Bork nomination.
Further in what situation would you personally fear that Biden might offer an incorrect decision?
You're comfortable with him being "a heartbeat away" from being the world's most powerful man.
WSS
-
Steve, come on. I have work to do.
Joe Biden has been a Senator since he had real hair. He's perfectly qualified for high political office. He's more qualified than most, in fact. He is not, however, qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Because that's a different job. (I mean, come on. Don't make me type this shit just so you can be a dick.) And it's also really, really important.
Now, could Joe Biden sit on the Supreme Court and render opinions and have his clerks write them? Of course he could. Is this what we want out of our Supreme Court Justices? No, it's not.
Another qualification for the high court? Temperament. And that's where people questioned Bork's abilities, not his resume. John Roberts and Sam Alito were both qualified to be on the court, and more Democrats should have voted for them. This process has become far too political. That said, it's also not a rubber stamp. I'm happy Robert Bork isn't on the court, and I would have preferred it if Clarence Thomas weren't either.
Sort of like how Sarah Palin isn't unqualified to be president because she was a governor for half a term, though you could make that case as well. She's unqualified because she's an idiot who doesn't know anything about the subjects she's supposed to know about and she's got the personality and maturity of a teenage girl.
If you want to make the case that Elena Kagan's years of experience in the legal field didn't qualify her for the Supreme Court, then go ahead and try to make it. But that would be sort of a fruitless exercise since she clearly does. If you want to make the case that other aspects of Elena Kagan the person don't meet the criteria for the high court, go ahead and make it. But that would probably get you nowhere either.
And if you want to believe that Orrin Hatch's experience as a lawyer in a law firm in Pittsburgh and Utah decades ago, combined his service on the Senate Judiciary Committee, qualify him to sit on the highest court in the land, I think you're really wrong. But it would fit in with one of the dumbed opinions you hold, which is that it doesn't matter who we put in these really important jobs because someone else can tell them what to do.
So let's just acknowledge why you really are making this argument: because you have an idea that everything some people do is entirely political and that's the only way to explain their behavior, and you don't have many ideas that come after that.
-
Steve, come on. I have work to do.
Joe Biden has been a Senator since he had real hair. He's perfectly qualified for high political office. He's more qualified than most, in fact. He is not, however, qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Because that's a different job. (I mean, come on. Don't make me type this shit just so you can be a dick.) And it's also really, really important.
Now, could Joe Biden sit on the Supreme Court and render opinions and have his clerks write them? Of course he could. Is this what we want out of our Supreme Court Justices? No, it's not.
Another qualification for the high court? Temperament. And that's where people questioned Bork's abilities, not his resume. John Roberts and Sam Alito were both qualified to be on the court, and more Democrats should have voted for them. This process has become far too political. That said, it's also not a rubber stamp. I'm happy Robert Bork isn't on the court, and I would have preferred it if Clarence Thomas weren't either.
Sort of like how Sarah Palin isn't unqualified to be president because she was a governor for half a term, though you could make that case as well. She's unqualified because she's an idiot who doesn't know anything about the subjects she's supposed to know about and she's got the personality and maturity of a teenage girl.
If you want to make the case that Elena Kagan's years of experience in the legal field didn't qualify her for the Supreme Court, then go ahead and try to make it. But that would be sort of a fruitless exercise since she clearly does. If you want to make the case that other aspects of Elena Kagan the person don't meet the criteria for the high court, go ahead and make it. But that would probably get you nowhere either.
And if you want to believe that Orrin Hatch's experience as a lawyer in a law firm in Pittsburgh and Utah decades ago, combined his service on the Senate Judiciary Committee, qualify him to sit on the highest court in the land, I think you're really wrong. But it would fit in with one of the dumbed opinions you hold, which is that it doesn't matter who we put in these really important jobs because someone else can tell them what to do.
So let's just acknowledge why you really are making this argument: because you have an idea that everything some people do is entirely political and that's the only way to explain their behavior, and you don't have many ideas that come after that.
So let's just acknowledge why you really are making this argument: because you have an idea that everything some people do is entirely political and that's the only way to explain their behavior, and you don't have many ideas that come after that.
Actually that speech reinforces my opinions.
If ideology is a problem then you need to find something else to object to.
Both sides do it.
But this is a busy time for me too, lotta miles lotta singing and a lotta wearing a skirt.
If there's nothing interesting in a few days I'll get back to this.
Best
WSS
-
Also, looks like O'Keefe didn't have the goods on this one either, and edited it selectively. Shame on us for falling for this. Again.
-
And, Glenn Beck reported that as edited, too.
and is being well applauded for his show's research....
-
Interesting take on this........
NPR Should Get Off The Government Dole
Rick Green March 18, 2011
I've got this love-hate relationship with NPR, which is the same way I feel about most of the other news media in my life.
There's plenty I can't stand. But there's even more that keeps me coming back.
Along with picking The Courant up off the porch and making a cup of coffee, turning on public radio is one of the first small pleasures of the day. I gladly contribute $100 or $150 a year for the kind of local and national news coverage NPR gives me.
But I can't keep this relationship up without some honesty and fairness.
NPR needs to get off the government dole.
We're not talking about much — about 11 percent of Connecticut Public Broadcasting's total budget comes from the federal government through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This year, about $1.5 million in federal dollars will go to Connecticut Public Television with another $330,000 going to WNPR. There is no regular state appropriation, although from time to time Connecticut Public Broadcasting does get state money for capital projects.
The problem isn't the amount. The issue here is the government has no business anointing winners and losers in the rapidly evolving news business.
Once, when big media (and big newspapers in particular) dominated, there was a good argument to be made for government funding for radio and TV that offered an in-depth and commercial-free alternative.
Those days are gone. In a world where a majority of consumers now go online for news, there are half a dozen or more websites right here in Connecticut trying to do what NPR does. Some, like the New Haven Independent or the new Connecticut Mirror, use private donations to pay the bills. Not to mention the old-school Courant, New Haven Register or Connecticut Post, which are all still trying to make a profit in the news business.
Which is why — wince — I'm standing with Republicans in the House of Representatives and my own state GOP Chair Chris Healy about de-funding NPR. On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted 228-192 to block federal funding to NPR. The bill has little future, however, since the Democratic-controlled Senate is unlikely to take it up and President Barack Obama has said he will veto it.
"We are having all these tough conversations about what we can live without,'' Healy told me. "I'm not here to bitch about the coverage or whether it's liberal. It's almost like state radio."
"I'd rather be spending that money on immunizations in the North End of Hartford."
Of course, I'd like to see the day when Republican extremists in Congress stand up for poor folks. And yes it's ironic to note, as the Think Progress blog does, that we spend 40,000 times more on the failing war in Afghanistan than on public radio.
But NPR doesn't deserve a sweeter deal than anyone else out there trying to make it in the local media world — from the libertarian Yankee Institute's Raising Hale project to Christine Stuart's CT News Junkie to Tom Dudchik's Capitol Report.
Government handouts "distort the market. It stifles innovation and it gives advantage to monopolistic media companies,'' said Paul Bass, founder of the New Haven Independent, a news website funded by foundations and contributions from readers. "That's not good for the public. Maybe some of us would get money and we shouldn't.''
Connecticut Public Broadcasting CEO Jerry Franklin told me they'd do fine without federal money, but smaller more rural stations across the country might go dark.
"A lot of people doing all the talking are totally uninformed,'' he said. Critics "can't tell the difference between the public television schedule and the commercial schedule."
Franklin pointed to shows on mental health, childhood depression, obesity and urban education. "Who the hell other than public broadcasting would cover that in a prime-time format? The answer is nobody."
Without the federal money, "the scheduling would not be as robust,'' Franklin said. "Maybe we wouldn't have 12 hours a day of children's programming. … Do you want our daytime schedule to look like the commercial stations? The majority of Americans do not want that either."
"If we were as biased as some of our critics say, we wouldn't be as successful as we are,'' Franklin said. "Twenty-seven million Americans each week listen to NPR."
Which is why NPR doesn't need the government handout in the first place.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login