Destino Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Oh yes, completely opposing abortion is "extremism." We're just a bunch of crazies. Get up off the floor, you're not a victim. The abortion debate is defined by two extreme positions, those that want to ban it entirely and those that want it available as basically a defacto form of birth control. No one is calling anyone crazy and I certainly didn't mean to imply it. ---------- Post added February-21st-2011 at 01:38 AM ---------- How did we get from National Public Radio to abortion rights, again? Because IHOP posted a viewpoint of someone defining "bias" as "anything to the left of me" that included falsehoods (a link that didn't exist to a pro-abortion site) and a call for bias language even worse than that they claim existed in the article. ---------- Post added February-21st-2011 at 01:41 AM ---------- Expecting a Liberal to notice liberal bias is like expecting a fish to notice that it's wet. I notice the bias as you define it. It exists everywhere! People that aren't as right wing as you talking and writing things... spreading bias every time they do. How dare they not be as right wing as you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Seems to me that most of the press in general and the people who gravitate towards that profession are left of center according to me, however I don't see this as a problem just they way it is. NPR gets a huge negative rep from right wing talk radio. I just don't get it though, when I do listen to NPR - yes I find the hosts liberal leaning, however I find them much more "fair and balanced" then fox news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Hey DES....please notice the HIGHLIGHT ......Also, You might consider not highlighting NARAL’s reference on your website it seems rather biased considering NO highlight for the FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL'sThen again, if your were ALSO trying to LINK to NARAL and not FRC.....your NARAL link doesn't work......But that just demonstrates your incompetence.....as well as more of your bias Miss it?....you did the first timeThe piece you posted argued that something was highlighted when it was a link to an article. They argued that it was a link to NARAL's site, when it was a link to an article Your statement is incorrectFurther.... Do you think HIGHLIGHTING NARAL was a Link?Thats me asking Burg IF it was a link....got that?.....No?.....I figured...I'll type slower and use bigger highlights so even a moron can figure it outIt would be VERY Biased if they are attempting to link to Naral and Not to FRC.......and if not a link I would ask....Why the highlight on one and not the other? Get it NOW?I never said it was a link...I wondered IF it was IHOP posted a viewpoint of someone defining "bias" as "anything to the left of me" that included falsehoods (a link that didn't exist to a pro-abortion site) .I included Falsehoods?........You sir are a piece of work........And You call people "Obvious Moron"?Read More.....Post Less....and try not LABELING people :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 If they are that great then they should be able to stand on their own in the private sector without tax dollars. Yeah, because the quality of private sector journalism is so high....you know it's like you don't even live in this century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Yeah, because the quality of private sector journalism is so high....you know it's like you don't even live in this century. Agreed. You guys know where I stand when it comes to government funded anything (that's usually one of my more libertarian leanings) but I think, objectively speaking, we can all say that PBS/NPR wouldn't last a second in the free market. Not because their programming is poor. Quite the opposite, actually. It's too good. There's too much thought and quality in it. It's too civil and too enlightening. We live in a nation where the likes of Jersey Shore is popular entertainment, the words of Glenn Beck are gospel, and top 20 radio is king. How could they ever survive? If we're going to live in a world where our lives revolve around our televisions and (to a lesser degree) radios, then we need an alternative from commercialization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Agreed. You guys know where I stand when it comes to government funded anything (that's usually one of my more libertarian leanings) but I think, objectively speaking, we can all say that PBS/NPR wouldn't last a second in the free market. Not because their programming is poor. Quite the opposite, actually. It's too good. There's too much thought and quality in it. It's too civil and too enlightening. We live in a nation where the likes of Jersey Shore is popular entertainment, the words of Glenn Beck are gospel, and top 20 radio is king. How could they ever survive? If we're going to live in a world where our lives revolve around our televisions and (to a lesser degree) radios, then we need an alternative from commercialization. Reading that was like having a choir of angels burst into the Hallelujah chorus right behind me. ---------- Post added February-21st-2011 at 09:14 AM ---------- I never said it was a link...I wondered Yeah, and that's an old Faux News trick, dangle suggestions and innuendo and then later on in the day state that others are suggesting links between two unrelated things. Seen that song and dance way too many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 [/color] The abortion debate is defined by two extreme positions, those that want to ban it entirely and those that want it available as basically a defacto form of birth control. There's a difference between "extreme" and "extremism." ---------- Post added February-21st-2011 at 10:37 AM ---------- Faux News In all seriousness, it's not the least bit cute anymore, and I'm not the only one on here who has said the same thing. If you're going to have a pet name for Fox, I would suggest something newer and more original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Not to sidetrack too much: But this is not deciding on state birds. The topic itself is life vs. death. Even picking the middle ground is extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 In all seriousness, it's not the least bit cute anymore, and I'm not the only one on here who has said the same thing. If you're going to have a pet name for Fox, I would suggest something newer and more original. In all seriousness, I'm not trying to be the least be cute, and I don't really care that you or others don't like it. I don't have to come up with a pet name for Faux News especially when this one is entirely appropriate. I simply refuse to acknowledge Faux as a legitimate source of news or a journalistic institution that has any credibility, it in all reality is faux news, as in pseudo news, and I'll not apologize for saying so. Now, let's get back on topic of the vast evilness of Sesame Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Agreed. You guys know where I stand when it comes to government funded anything (that's usually one of my more libertarian leanings) but I think, objectively speaking, we can all say that PBS/NPR wouldn't last a second in the free market. Not because their programming is poor. Quite the opposite, actually. It's too good. Really? NPR already gets the vast majority of its funding from corporations and individuals. The government is only picking up a fraction of their overall costs. I have more faith it NPR's ability to make up the difference. I wouldn't want it to be paid for through advertising, but corporate sponsorship is, to me, preferable to a government subsidy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 but corporate sponsorship is, to me, preferable to a government subsidy. Why? Do you feel the same about the Smithsonian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Thats me asking Burg IF it was a link....got that?.....No?.....I figured...I'll type slower and use bigger highlights so even a moron can figure it out I never said it was a link...I wondered IF it was Here is what you wrote: Also, You might consider not highlighting NARAL’s reference on your website it seems rather biased considering NO highlight for the FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL'sThen again, if your were ALSO trying to LINK to NARAL and not FRC.....your NARAL link doesn't work......But that just demonstrates your incompetence.....as well as more of your bias First off, you're argument of link as a "highlight" showing bias is absurd. You're pretending that it's highlighted in order to draw attention to it while the FRC is not given the same treatment. Well by your own ridiculous standards looking at the exactly same article I notice "Bush Administration" is highlighted and Obama is not. Now moving on to this "if" business: IF you failed to notice Bush administration was highlighted because you're so extremely bias that would be sad. I WONDER IF there aren't millions more that are so caught up ridiculous notions of bias that they can't be trusted to read an article without conjuring up a boogyman. PERHAPS, people are using the definition of bias I mentioned on page one? According to your logic I made no statements there right? I was just wondering IF PERHAPS some of those things might be the case and that shouldn't be confused that with me implying anything. This old trick reminds me of "terrorist fist jab" comment. The FoxNews reporter didn't say it was a "terrorist fist jab" she asked if it was... so that made it ok. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Are Monty Python libs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Why? Because NPR is so close already. Only about 4% of their budget is from a government subsidy. The rest comes from Individuals, corporations, universities, foundations,etc. It doesn't seem like it would be too much an effort to make up that difference. The benefit being that NPR would then be a non-profit entity, free from the governmental entanglements. I know I don't want government subsidies for my church for the same reason. Do you feel the same about the Smithsonian? I'm comfortable with the government funding research and the preservation of history and culture. I'm less comfortable with government funded news organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Because NPR is so close already. Only about 4% of their budget is from a government subsidy. The rest comes from Individuals, corporations, universities, foundations,etc. It doesn't seem like it would be too much an effort to make up that difference. Except that in this time of recession donations are pretty thin, I do not want a journalistic institution such as NPR, nor the educational TV like PBS to disappear because of a recession, they are much too valuable. The benefit being that NPR would then be a non-profit entity, free from the governmental entanglements. I know I don't want government subsidies for my church for the same reason. Government entanglements? Other than a check what entanglements have you seen or can you point to? Was NPR Right leaning under Republican administrations and then switches back under Democrat? Seriously, you're going to have to illustrate these entanglements to me. Was my church's day care involved in a government entanglement when we were on a State food program? I'm really sorry, but I guess I just don't hold nearly the same view that government is bad in all things that I keep hearing from the Right. I'm comfortable with the government funding research and the preservation of history and culture. I'm less comfortable with government funded news organizations. On principle or in practice. As I've heard a lot lately the BBC seems to be one of the best news institutions in the Western world and it's government funded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Really? NPR already gets the vast majority of its funding from corporations and individuals. The government is only picking up a fraction of their overall costs. I have more faith it NPR's ability to make up the difference. I wouldn't want it to be paid for through advertising, but corporate sponsorship is, to me, preferable to a government subsidy. I'm pretty sure they give corporations tax write-offs for that since NPR and PBS are not-for-profit or because of their affiliation with the government. Not sure, though. I'll have to look into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I'm pretty sure they give corporations tax write-offs for that since NPR and PBS are not-for-profit or because of their affiliation with the government. Not sure, though. I'll have to look into it. Yeah, both individuals and corporations should get tax right offs for donations just like they would if they donated to any other non profit. But the issue isn't tax write offs for donations to a non-profit news organizations, its direct government payments to the non-profit news organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Really? NPR already gets the vast majority of its funding from corporations and individuals. The government is only picking up a fraction of their overall costs. I have more faith it NPR's ability to make up the difference. I wouldn't want it to be paid for through advertising, but corporate sponsorship is, to me, preferable to a government subsidy. "Tonight, on PBS: an in-depth look at the 2008 Financial Crisis. What went wrong? Who is to blame? Join us at 8pm. brought to you by Goldman Sachs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 "Tonight, on PBS: an in-depth look at the 2008 Financial Crisis. What went wrong? Who is to blame? Join us at 8pm.brought to you by Goldman Sachs Or: brought to you by Goldman Sachs and its partnering organization, the House Ways and Means Committee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 "Tonight, on PBS: an in-depth look at the 2008 Financial Crisis. What went wrong? Who is to blame? Join us at 8pm.brought to you by Goldman Sachs Hey if tobacco could do that on all cancer studies for years or even decades why shouldn't others :pfft: Sideways, that's another positive of the NPR/PBS model. As a not for profit, under the law they have to list their contributors. So, if a major contributor was a slimeball we'd know it. Of course, the bigger danger is not that the slimeball pays for the news (lots of slimes want positive press and so donate to worthy causes), but if the slimeball actually produces the research or the documentary and passes it off as objective science or reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Here is what you wrote:.......First off, ........Now moving on to this "if" business:....If you didn't accuse people of being an obvious Moron...I might take you more seriouslyThat you continue to dance around the issue of accusing me of saying it was a link to Naral....and not admiting you were wrong...and then accusing me of a direct falsehood for the same...means you can't deal with the issue I brought up Try being honest Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.