Koch almost nearly kinda endorses Clinton.
- Thread starter TUMe
- Start date
The radical left trashes the Koch brothers because they are rich and that promotes the lieberals political agenda, but in reality the Koch's aren't that conservative. But as long as they make money from anything but wind and solar, the Koch's are the enemy to the Marxist leaning Dumocrats. The Koch's actually help fund a number of organizations I don't approve of, such as some PBS programming*.
*I don't approve of any kind of govt funding/our tax dollars - going to the media.
*I don't approve of any kind of govt funding/our tax dollars - going to the media.
The media? What the hell has PBS done to make you angry? You didn't like the way Mr. Rogers said "hello neighbor" or maybe you have something against Sesame Street. Lol
Well how about this. We do not allow publicly funding of religion - separation of church from state. The reasoning is that the founders believed we should not "favor" one church over another and that the govt should not establish any church/religion even though the first amendment guarantees the freedom of religion (and the press) . So there is a precedent of the govt allowing those freedoms and others, yet not siding with the funding and establishment of them.
Why should we, the taxpayers, support one network over another? It leads to an ultimate end of indoctrinating the masses. That is a very dangerous concept and has been done in virtually every totalitarian society including Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Let me repeat - its a very dangerous practice.
Now I am all for PBS's existence as long as we don't publicly fund it. Same with NPR.
Hopefully that explains the post.
That might have been the stupidest post I've ever read on any site ever. For so many reasons number one being the fact that PBS is the least biased channel on television. Hell I bet you'd find more hard hitting political commentary on the home garden network. I guess the UK had better stop putting on the BBC both radio and television because obviously they're talking for the dark path to communism. Dr Who be damned!
I guess you'd rather see big bird
move over to Fox News where he can rail against the liberal stoners like snoughaloughagess
The government will fund programs that are beneficial and educational, but might not get funded if left to 'for profit organizations'. It is only partially government funded anyway. It is about the least controversial media outlet out there. You have some of the zaniest crackpot ideas in your head. I'm guessing you are against grant programs too...
Sesame Street is probably the only thing on the channel that makes money right now and it's because they can sell merchandise. They sell merchandise because kids love it even while it teaches them things. Seems like a win win to me. PBS isn't really about political punditry it's about putting on TV that represents American culture and society things like Antiques Roadshow or Austin City Limits have nothing to do with politics.
And he has even zanier ones... (Atufan)
Everybody's living off your back, I don't know where you make the millions everybody steals from you...
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/explainer/2012/01/does_sesame_street_lose_money_.html
Everybody's living off your back, I don't know where you make the millions everybody steals from you...
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/explainer/2012/01/does_sesame_street_lose_money_.html
This isn't about Big Bird. We do not want to give the govt the "ability" to mind control us in any way shape or form through funding. I emphasize the term "ability". We should never allow our taxes to be used to promote any agenda of any kind even a govt agenda. We must always be aware of giving the govt too much power over us. Propaganda and mind control are what occurred in Germany, China, NK and the USSR. Again, I'm not saying it IS being done here/now, but i am saying we should never give the govt through taxation the power to.
Power corrupts absolutely if we give govt absolute power. A check and balance on govt also means having a free press, not a govt controlled/compliant press.
So let me ask this question. Should the govt (taxes) be allowed to fully fund Foxnews if it decides to and if Republicans win the congress and WH? Rush Limbaugh and his radio network? I don't want that either.
BTW, I won't call your post dumb, just ill-informed.
Last edited:
I told you. This thread will wander in the dessert for 40 years .
I think you overestimate the popularity of PBS. If the government was to wage a propaganda campaign, it certainly wouldn't come from a channel that reruns antiques road show. It would come from people like Fox News or MSNBC.
Actually, I'd argue it already happened. Fox News was the biggest proponent for the Iraq War for a while. You didn't catch NPR doing the same over-inflated "We'll put a boot in your ass" patriotic rhetoric that was occurring during that period. That's the beauty of the system we have now, the government doesn't need a propaganda outlet on the books... they already have multiple ones off the books that will do it at no charge.
I'd argue that there more opportunist than anything. They support the candidate that they think can do the most for them. That family has been like that since their father was building chemical factories for Hitler and Stalin before WWII.
Back on point: Once again its not about the current programming on PBS. Its about the potential abuse that can occur and our inability to combat it once it occurs with the power of govt involved in funding it. I'd be completely happy if PBS and NPR got their funding from any mechanism other than our tax dollars. Its not about PBS/NPR's right to exist.
By accepting govt dollars, the relationship of media and govt becomes too closely connected and the problem then is that the press is no longer "free" (from govt). We need a media that CAN be critical of the govt in the same way Edward R Murrow was many decades ago.
The term freedom of the press is in the Bill of Rights - a document that limits govt from intruding on those rights. The founders wanted a free press completely separate from govt influence and control.
Again, its a limit on govt.
There is absolutely no need for this kind of media funding with our taxes. IMO
Actually back off point again . The thread is about Koch saying that Trump is dangerous . Or at least not qualified to be president . If you want to talk about PBS you can do that but don't say it's the point .
There's a clear difference between what you're talking about (political and governmental critic) and presenting news. What you're saying is the government shouldn't have any hand in any channel on television. We better de-fund the national weather service. Wouldn't want any of their influence on TV or Radio to be able to corrupt the minds of our populous.
As it is, there's no reason for the government to EVER use PBS as a propaganda entity simply because it would be inefficient unless they started forcing every adult or child in the country to watch it.
The difference between public access television in a communist state like China, or Russia, or North Korea is (or was) that they didn't have access to other channels that had punditry. Maybe if the US didn't have any broadcast or cable news networks I could see your argument. But the fact that is that the main public access channel / radio stations mostly deal with cultural topics rather than politics (and there's no reason for them to change that) and if you want a channel that is openly and candidly discussing a viewpoint about the state of society's affair, you have access to it.
If you're worried about where your tax dollars go, maybe it would actually be BETTER for you to listen to straight news from a more or less unbiased source than some Fox News or MSNBC analyst railing on about how 'we' (the righteous good guys) are fighting 'them' (the deplorable bad guys). Having those channels around is important, but that doesn't mean they should be used as an 'freedom of the press' excuse to get rid of PBS or NPR.
What I'm saying is that any direct govt funding of the media should not be encouraged because it opens up the possibility that at some point the govt would be able to manipulate the news - whether it is presently occurring or not. The question should be raised whether the govt is involved in funding something they shouldn't.
The FF were pretty clear in the first amendment that "congress" shall not engage in certain activities such as endorsing and funding a church as well as restricting (or influencing with $) a free press. I'm pretty sure the FF would frown on having any govt funded (and thus controlled) news source. That is the opposite of a "free" press.
So why can't PBS get its funding completely from advertisements, donations (including the Koch's BTW which is happening with NOVA and other programming) and telethons? They already get a lot of their funding from that as it is. I'm fine with periodic commercial breaks on PBS. And lets save the money we spend there and put it into something more worthwhile like paying down the national debt.
IMO
The FF were pretty clear in the first amendment that "congress" shall not engage in certain activities such as endorsing and funding a church as well as restricting (or influencing with $) a free press. I'm pretty sure the FF would frown on having any govt funded (and thus controlled) news source. That is the opposite of a "free" press.
So why can't PBS get its funding completely from advertisements, donations (including the Koch's BTW which is happening with NOVA and other programming) and telethons? They already get a lot of their funding from that as it is. I'm fine with periodic commercial breaks on PBS. And lets save the money we spend there and put it into something more worthwhile like paying down the national debt.
IMO
No. Just no. Once you open up a news source to needing private sector funding, you open up that news source to being bought and sold at the whims of anyone who funds it. I'd rather the news be relatively unbiased and operated in some small capacity at the will of officials who are publicly elected than a corporate news station that is subject to the opinions of whoever owns it or provides the most money to it. (Ted Turner, The Kochs, etc...)
Personally, I don't want the news about the "Contamination at the Coca-Cola plant" being read by an anchor drinking from a Coke bottle.
Disagree. I believe there's a bigger threat from government funded and run news agencies than private for profit media. One of the historical jobs of the media is a check on governmental power. There's a reason why oppressive regimes usually control the news via state run media. With for profit media you're going to have outlets on all sides of the political spectrum due to demand rising from the divergent political views of the consumer. With state run media the only message/news one receives is the agenda being pushed by the state.
It's not government controlled. There is such a thing as partial government funding without government control and they are a prime example of this. It is an institution that would be corrupted if left to 'for profit' commercial funding. There is virtually no influence or restriction by the government. If there were then it would likely be fixed or axed. It also does not have much of a news aspect to it. And that is what the forefathers made that regulation of influence and/or restriction for in the first place. And the 'savings' it would bring to the budget so that we could help 'pay' down the national debt would be the equivalent of saving a dollar or two on a $20,000 car. And nearly half that money is actually what helps local stations like Channel 11(PBS) stay afloat, and has nothing to do with the programming.
Last edited:
I understand. Was speaking more in the abstract than referencing PBS. Hell...this whole thread has gone abstract.
I wasn't arguing for ONLY government controlled television... I don't think one channel out of the 500 or so that exist is going to be that big of deal.
Edit: Also, if the media is supposed to check governmental power, who checks the media's power? (Especially in an age where media is millions of times more available to the general public than in 1776)
The difference is the government is (mostly) made up of elected officials or staff who are appointed by those officials. No one elected Roger Ailes (Fox News founder and consultant for just about every Republican over the last 50 years) He is accountable to a select few people... namely his corporate sponsors and that's about it. No one elected Ted Turner or Tom Rogers or any of the broadcast network executives. They of course should have the right to broadcast freely (what the freedom of the press is really about) but that doesn't mean logically that they'll be any more trustworthy than a corrupt government. Especially when they have the power to put in place a corrupt government if they try hard enough.
Last edited:
I see several differences between multiple private news outlets compared to one state run outlet. The private media outlets are kept in check by the makeup of the U.S. which, in a capitalist society, guarantees news and reporting from both sides of the political spectrum. These outlets in turn police each other (some would say over police) based on their political leanings. One could argue that we have very few political neutral media organizations in the current marketplace. An argument which has merit.
Let's contrast to state controlled media. They are able to report and censor what fits their political agenda. (See the White House bleeping out the phase "Islamic terrorism" from Holland's comments on security in the EU). The only check is the private media. Very few corporations have initiated coops and installed oppressive regimes responsible for millions of deaths throughout history.
Let's contrast to state controlled media. They are able to report and censor what fits their political agenda. (See the White House bleeping out the phase "Islamic terrorism" from Holland's comments on security in the EU). The only check is the private media. Very few corporations have initiated coops and installed oppressive regimes responsible for millions of deaths throughout history.
No the only check is the voter. If you don't like how the current administration (congressional or presidential) is handling it's incredibly small media presence, then you have the ability to vote to change the people in charge. Good luck doing that with the 4 or 5 guys that control 50% or more of today's 'press'.
I believe I see what you did there? Final four leaves out Kasich?
If so, then yes I agree wholeheartedly with your worst Final Four.
Odd comment. All posters have spoken of this in a hypothetical way. You are the first to mention a party. For the record, I am not afraid of PBS, but what is being discussed in this odd thread is a future problem with an unnamed party. Why make it otherwise? It could be either one.
Back on point.
PBS and NPR are not essential to the nation, yet are being presented by some on this board as if they were.
People, we have a 19 trillion dollar growing govt debt and we need to look at every non essential expenditure we can to eliminate that. Having a lavishly funded public television network virtually no-one watches is a huge waste of resources in my view. It is unneeded and the federal spending on it is unnecessary, especially when it can be funded elsewhere through donors and advertisements. If we can't cut out this kind of reckless, wasteful govt spending, we will never have a solvent budget and those who can't understand that need to go back to econ 101.
We shouldn't eventually be forced to cut SS, medicare, medicaid, the armed forces, vet benefits, aid to dependent children etc and etc, so we can fund shrimp on a treadmill or NPR. In the vast scheme of things PBS and NPR are extravagantly produced entertainment, not govt programs that actually help folks who need it to survive the day.
But I suppose I have to live with the fact that some well-intended folks will never understand or maybe just don't care enough about the future of our country when all is said and done to look at these vitally important national problems that put us all (including our wonderful kids) in jeopardy.
PBS and NPR are not essential to the nation, yet are being presented by some on this board as if they were.
People, we have a 19 trillion dollar growing govt debt and we need to look at every non essential expenditure we can to eliminate that. Having a lavishly funded public television network virtually no-one watches is a huge waste of resources in my view. It is unneeded and the federal spending on it is unnecessary, especially when it can be funded elsewhere through donors and advertisements. If we can't cut out this kind of reckless, wasteful govt spending, we will never have a solvent budget and those who can't understand that need to go back to econ 101.
We shouldn't eventually be forced to cut SS, medicare, medicaid, the armed forces, vet benefits, aid to dependent children etc and etc, so we can fund shrimp on a treadmill or NPR. In the vast scheme of things PBS and NPR are extravagantly produced entertainment, not govt programs that actually help folks who need it to survive the day.
But I suppose I have to live with the fact that some well-intended folks will never understand or maybe just don't care enough about the future of our country when all is said and done to look at these vitally important national problems that put us all (including our wonderful kids) in jeopardy.
Actually nobody was really talking much about NPR much, but if you want to raise that issue.. With my analogy from earlier of a couple of dollars savings on a $20,000 car for PBS, the savings would be about 5 cents for getting rid of NPR funding. And all of that was not even federal funding, I'm only guessing but I would say about 1 cent out of the 5 was local and state funding. In 2011 NPR's total direct funding from local, state and federal government funds was 11 million and change for the entire year.
And as TUME said earlier, it is not back on point. Just becuz it is 'your' point doesn't mean it is back on point. Check the original post in this topic...
And as TUME said earlier, it is not back on point. Just becuz it is 'your' point doesn't mean it is back on point. Check the original post in this topic...
Last edited:
Koch almost nearly kinda endorses Clinton.
------------
holy sh-- now what do the lib scomplain about. sorry George.
------------
holy sh-- now what do the lib scomplain about. sorry George.
I'm to lazy to dig up numbers right now, but I'm pretty sure that the combined budget of all the things you mention is already above or at least pretty close to the actual annual budget. NPR is pretty far from the reason we run a deficit, that's just rhetoric. We can debate whether funding NPR and PBS is appropriate or necessary, but it is not causing us to go broke.
You also allude to NSF grants. If you don't think the government should directly support scientific research, that's fine. But if the government IS going to directly fund some scientific research, then determining WHAT to fund becomes a rather difficult prospect. What we have is a system where proposals are put forth and reviewed and scored by other scientists in their field to determine which have the best merit and best chances of accomplishing something. Do some sneak by that probably should have been given a pass? Absolutely. But the system is about as good as it can be. Having a Congressional committee would have demonstrably worse outcomes for obvious reasons. They would have no idea who is reputable, who isn't, what the real problems in various fields are, etc. For instance, I could write a proposal to find a cure for cancer that sounds great, by simply glossing over a host of known problems. If a fellow scientist reviews it, they will critique it by saying, "That's nice, but how in the heck do you propose to solve thorny Issues 1-5?" If a congressman reads it? Who knows what will happen, but I am guessing a lot of money going after bad projects or friends of big donors.
Peer review is how most places that fund research do it, publicly funded or not. I personally am actually a paid reviewer for the Hong Kong version of the NSF, and I get sent a few proposals every year to score in areas of my expertise. If your position is that the government should simply abolish the NSF because you don't think the government should do that, fine, but that's another debate. In any case, I encourage you to abandon the argument that it generally funds worthless stuff or that the selection criteria is lacking.
What was this thread about again? Koch brother seems revolted by Trump? Can't say I blame him.
Chlong has been a great addition to this board. We may not always agree on everything but his posts are well thought out and presented in a through and professional manner. Politeness lives.
Is this his allusion to NSF funding, or his impression of what the general populace of NPR employees do all day?
Similar threads
