Christieends Soviet style broadcasting

[LuciferSam]

I usually do not put much credence into the title of a thread although sometimes it makes me open it. I am more interested in what is posted in the thread and whether it has any merit. This one doesn't, IMO. Idlewind answered the questions asked of him and supplied his stance. Some do not accept what he has said so they attempt to spin and twist his answers into something he does not mean and is intended to make him look stupid and uneducated. Despite what some who post here may believe, those who post with opposite points of view are not stupid. I speak only for myself but I have had a long work career, received education both in the military and civilian life and have managed to make myself financially secure. I am sure it is also true of Idlewind and 30ashopper, who seem to be the ones left posting here who share my values and point of view. It is my contention that when we attempt to be civil and post our positions we are thwarted at every turn, and, as a rule, nastily at that. Now, before all of you with an opposite point of view start screaming I am whining, let me assure you that if that is your take, I accept it. But be assured I think those who agree with Idlewind are right and those who don't, for the most part, are wrong. (Nothing is ever 100%)

Well that's fine but it would be nice if at least once you could make an argument other than from a position of authority, experience, background blah! blah! blah!. Whether you realize it or not, that comes across as being quite nasty and of course you wouldn't what that to happen. Not only that, you make judgments on people's educational background and financial stability based on whether or not they agree with you:

I speak only for myself but I have had a long work career, received education both in the military and civilian life and have managed to make myself financially secure. I am sure it is also true of Idlewind and 30ashopper, who seem to be the ones left posting here who share my values and point of view.

Then you have the gall to play the victim card:

It is my contention that when we attempt to be civil and post our positions we are thwarted at every turn, and, as a rule, nastily at that. Now, before all of you with an opposite point of view start screaming I am whining, let me assure you that if that is your take, I accept it.

This is all the result of a thead started by Idlewind based on hyperbole and spouting conspiracy theory.

 

[idlewind]

First, you say you are against funding of something that is clearly in the the best interest of the citizenry.Does this mean you are against food subsidies, fuel subsidies, roads, highways, bridges, the military? These are all funded by the federal governmnent. Should we let the private sector handle the arm forces? Should we let the oil companies operate without all the subsidies they get? But when it comes to the education of the citizens of this country, you would rather have that handled by profit-oriented news corporations. I find that a bit hypocritical.

Second, you say you don't want NPR to become a propaganda machine. Again, I will ask you, do you ever listen to NPR? If you want to talk about propaganda, I want you to ponder the word "Obamacare". Is this a word that the vast majority of intelligent people on the face of the earth use, and agree with it's meaning, or is this an artificial propaganda term used by one sector of the population, over and over again, to propagate a false premise. Heath care reform was passed by a majority of both houses of Congress, so why isn't it called Congresscare? "Obamacare"? doublespeak? propaganda? you decide...

Let me try this one more time, I will try and write slowly so you can grasp the points:

1. The "Soviet style" is one where the government controls every aspect of life and owns all the property. So, the government owning businesses by definition moves us closer to the "soviet" model;

2. While I do not have an issue with Big Bird and Co., history shows us that what a government funds, a government will eventually control. While you may agree with current content, how would you like it if a conservative government in the future put Rush in charge of NPR?

3. Governments should have limited focus and have no business using tax dollars to fund competition for taxpaying businesses;

4. The Federal Government is very limited by the Constitution as to what its legitimate functions should be. The military, foriegn affairs, the courts and interstate infrastructure are all legitimate functions of the federal government;

5. I do not think food subsidies, fuel subsidies, welfare to oil companies or education are legitimate uses of federal tax dollars. Those are reserved for state and local governments to implement if they choose;

6. As far as "obamacare" that is the name the public has associated with nationalized healthcare. I am sure it originated in conservative circles to tie Obama to the effort in the future. Is it a form of propaganda? Yes. Does it have anything to do with this discussion? No. Was your mention of it an attempt to divert attention from the point that the federal government has no business in the media business? Yes.

7. Why is this important to Joe Citizen and therefore not "silly?" Because the Federal Government's propensity to fund everything and stick their nose in every pie is the reason the country is going broke and one reason why our economy is in such bad shape. We must return to the republic the founders envisioned or suffer the consequences of our wasteful spending.

 

[idlewind]

Well that's fine but it would be nice if at least once you could make an argument other than from a position of authority, experience, background blah! blah! blah!. Whether you realize it or not, that comes across as being quite nasty and of course you wouldn't what that to happen. Not only that, you make judgments on people's educational background and financial stability based on whether or not they agree with you:




Then you have the gall to play the victim card:



This is all the result of a thead started by Idlewind based on hyperbole and spouting conspiracy theory.

I title threads so as to generate interest and draw viewers. I start threads to start discussion. I expect and welcome opposing views. Discussion gives me a chance to learn something.
As far as conspiracy theories, I am not alleging any. What I am alleging is that the Federal government is too large and involved in many aspects of daily life it has no business being involved in. For us to fix our problems people must accept that the federal government cannot fix everything and cannot fund everything. PBS and NPR can operate quite nicely as not for profits that are not owned or associated with government. But maybe when Bachman gets elected she will appoint Rush to be over both. That would be a hoot but it would still be wrong.

 

[Lake View Too]

So, as far as the education of the citizens of this country, you would prefer to leave it to the multi-national conglomerate media corporations, who could be owned and operated by anyone, including Muslims, Saudi Arabians, and the Chinese. Leave it to the marketplace to present us with the facts...after this important commercial.Oh yeah, there's no propaganda in that system.

 

[beachmouse]

I've gotta admit I watched the Chinese propaganda channel a bit when it used to be part of our Directv package and there was something rather amusing about watching a totalitarian government's attempt to find the right tone for Western broadcasting and failing every time. That and you could get utterly hammered if you set up a drinking game to take a chug every time someone said "Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region" which seemed to be an odd constant point of emphasis for the channel and government.

 

[LuciferSam]

I title threads so as to generate interest and draw viewers. I start threads to start discussion. I expect and welcome opposing views. Discussion gives me a chance to learn something.
As far as conspiracy theories, I am not alleging any. What I am alleging is that the Federal government is too large and involved in many aspects of daily life it has no business being involved in. For us to fix our problems people must accept that the federal government cannot fix everything and cannot fund everything. PBS and NPR can operate quite nicely as not for profits that are not owned or associated with government. But maybe when Bachman gets elected she will appoint Rush to be over both. That would be a hoot but it would still be wrong.

Just for the record, if you are trying to wreak havoc, ruffle feathers and create chaos I certainly don't have a problem with that, and I don't think anybody should. But I also think NPR is the most objective level-headed news out there.

 

[idlewind]

Just for the record, if you are trying to wreak havoc, ruffle feathers and create chaos I certainly don't have a problem with that, and I don't think anybody should. But I also think NPR is the most objective level-headed news out there.

One more time.......I have NO problem with NPR or anyone enjoying the content. My issue is with the government giving them tax dollars. I would have just as big a problem if the government was giving tax dollars to Fox, CNN, EIB (Rush), NBC or any other news outlet. No government has the right to take money from one person and give it to their competition.
The problem with Republicans is they always make the defunding of PBS and NPR about content. That is because they reserve the right to fund THEIR pet projects. It is not about content it is about the proper role of government. They are as clueless on that score as the Democrats.

 

[LuciferSam]

One more time.......I have NO problem with NPR or anyone enjoying the content. My issue is with the government giving them tax dollars. I would have just as big a problem if the government was giving tax dollars to Fox, CNN, EIB (Rush), NBC or any other news outlet. No government has the right to take money from one person and give it to their competition.
The problem with Republicans is they always make the defunding of PBS and NPR about content. That is because they reserve the right to fund THEIR pet projects. It is not about content it is about the proper role of government. They are as clueless on that score as the Democrats.

I don't want to beat this dead horse too much, but it seemed like you made some insinuations about the content of government media

No, but apparently you should expand your educational horizons. Try reading 1984 for a start. Then take a pass at Mein Kampf. Then come back and tell me you want the government "educating" its citizens. Because government "education" and "news reporting" has another name for it: propaganda. Both political sides will do it if they are given the opportunity.

All I'm saying is that this just hasn't happened. Maybe you should listen to NPR. In fact, call in and tell them that they be defunded. I'm sure they would enjoy discussing this. That's how they roll.

 

[PearlSB4U]

I love NPR....BUT...
We should be wary of government-sponsored "news", "education", or "religion".
All are potentially dangerous.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
We should always be on our guard vs. potential gov't overreach.

 

[Lake View Too]

I completely agree with being vigilant about govt sponsored media. I will continue to listen to NPR consistently and report back to you when I hear propaganda. In the 35 years I've been listening to it, it hasn't happened yet, but who knows.

Ya'll be sure that all the multi-national profit-motivated news organization don't stoop to propaganda, won't ya?