What planet does this guy live on? It is clear that he is INSANE.

You don’t have to be sane to be a dem congressman, actually your better not being sane, it’s a much better fit.

Seriously, dems are like little kids, screaming,whining, holding their breath, leaving their states, heh..

Sweet smokin’ Moses. Yet another clear example of how in touch with reality our politicians are.

We need to flush that toilet, and soon.

That was painful and embarrassing to watch.

The feds should also tax FoxNews every time they commercially use the American flag. That alone could cut the deficit in half.

Nacho said:
The feds should also tax FoxNews every time they commercially use the American flag. That alone could cut the deficit in half.

must be a liberal, lets tax something lol

ModerateMan said:
That was painful and embarrassing to watch.

What is painful is the three blind mice who preceded you wasting oxygen. If you actually WATCHED and LISTENED, what he was objecting to was the two-faced attitude of the House leadership. He invoked that mantra of the Faux Fools, “Fair and Balanced.” and carried it to it’s logical conclusion.
REMEMBER! The opposite of PROGRESS is CONGRESS!

Of course what Mediaite FAILED to note was that when reporters tried to contact him to see how much money, if any, goes to FNC he refused to say or reply.

Congress has been reduced to a grade school government. They spend countless hours of debating to defund something that the CBO says will maybe save a couple million dollars. These sideshows from both sides cost taxpayer dollars which further reduces the fiscal nature of the debate. Then, they all decide to take a week vacation. Without cutting the budget. What a bunch of sleazy weasels.

cjd ohio 1 said:
must be a liberal, lets tax something lol

It’s always the 2nd thing they think of. The first is how to physically empty your pockets.

I know Rep. McGovern is from Tax-a-chusetts, where they don’t have a good grasp of free market economics. But someone should point out to him the difference between running a business with real customers, and siphoning off taxpayer money for partisan purposes.

Well, this explains why the country is so fucked up. We have legislators in Washington that don’t understand the elementary difference between commerce and charity. The government doesn’t “fund” Fox News. It engages in COMMERCE with FNC. FNC has available airtime, and the government buys that airtime, usually for advertisements for our all VOLUNTEER armed forces.

Moreoever, this moron must not understand the concept of VALUE, because he wants to stop buying airtime ON THE MOST WATCHED CABLE NEWS NETWORK.

If this moron is the standard in DC and not the exception, we’re doomed.

“A new study released by the Pew Internet & American Life Project shows that while more and more Americans get political news online, television is still the most popular medium to get that information. And where do Americans get their political news on TV? A plurality say Fox News Channel.”

“Fair and Balanced” AGAIN BEATS lamestream socialist fake-news !

Democratic Rep. On Defunding NPR: ‘We Should Be Fair And Balanced’ And Defund Fox News

And this boob is making laws .

Wow. Did he have a copy of “rules for radicals” in front of him?

TeaPartyPatriot said:
“A new study released by the Pew Internet & American Life Project shows that while more and more Americans get political news online, television is still the most popular medium to get that information. And where do Americans get their political news on TV? A plurality say Fox News Channel.”

“Fair and Balanced” AGAIN BEATS lamestream socialist fake-news !

The leftwing media is really in a hopeless bind here. The kind of pre-digested, politically correct pap that they want their audience to consume just won’t ever win out in a free society. In the old days, the Left controlled the news operations at the only three national networks and all the leading newspapers — so they could decide what got covered and no one could stop them. But now people have real options, and they inevitably turn to the news sources that don’t censor and tamper with the news.

So the Wall Street Journal is destroying the New York Times in circulation. Fox is destroying CNN and MSNBC. The liberal talk radio propagandists have never gotten any traction. The web has proven totally resistant to censorship and control from the left. Etc.

The only places they still control are “one way media” in which no dissent is allowed — such as college classrooms, network TV and dying print media. Wherever real debate, dialogue and free exchange of ideas is allowed — in the “two-way media” — the left shrivels up and dies. They only feel comfortable in environments where they can ridicule, marginalize and silence their opponents. And there aren’t many spheres of discourse around where they can still get away with that approach.

All they are doing is making NPR just like Fox, PRIVATE ENTERPRIZE. Let us see who wins? LOL

Nacho said:
The feds should also tax FoxNews every time they commercially use the American flag. That alone could cut the deficit in half.

That reminds me of when msnbc used the flag UPSIDE down one day.

Fox news is not a News Organization, it is clearly an arm of the Fox led Republican Party. In other words a PROPAGANDA MACHINE, one that the Brown Shirts of Adolph Hitler would have been envious of. Listen to them on a daily basis, listen hard what you will hear is Fox Beating a negative subject over and over again. If there is a story that they feel makes the President look bad they will show it every fifteen minutes on ever one of thier show for a day or two, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, ON EVERY SHOW….This isn’t News it Propaganda plain and simple….

Lover said:
That reminds me of when msnbc used the flag UPSIDE down one day.

For eight years I bought US flag stamps and posted them upside down on all my mail.
The flag flown upside down is the international signal of distress.
Throughout the Bush/Cheney regime, our democracy was in great distress.
The flag stamps were an acknowledgment of that.

Clifford E.Elisary said:
Fox news is not a News Organization, it is clearly an arm of the Fox led Republican Party. In other words a PROPAGANDA MACHINE, one that the Brown Shirts of Adolph Hitler would have been envious of. Listen to them on a daily basis, listen hard what you will hear is Fox Beating a negative subject over and over again. If there is a story that they feel makes the President look bad they will show it every fifteen minutes on ever one of thier show for a day or two, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, ON EVERY SHOW….This isn’t News it Propaganda plain and simple….

lol

Joseph Glackin said:
For eight years I bought US flag stamps and posted them upside down on all my mail.The flag flown upside down is the international signal of distress.Throughout the Bush/Cheney regime, our democracy was in great distress.The flag stamps were an acknowledgment of that.

Since Obama is continuing everything Bush has done I take it that you still post mail with the flag upside down right? You really care for freedom right? And you are not just a party shill right?

It doesn’t take much to excite the angry left (like Nacho and Glacks above). A congressman makes a goofy statement about “defunding” something they have no authority over… and DON’T fund… and they just clap along.

It doesn’t take much, apparently.

Federal Dollars Spent By State Per Dollar of Federal Taxes

TOP TEN
1) New Mexico $2.03
2) Mississippi $2.02
3) Alaska $1.83
4) Louisiana $1.78
5) West Virginia $1.76
6) North Dakota $1.68
7) Alabama $1.66
8) South Dakota $1.53
9) Kentucky $1.51
10) Virginia $1.51

BOTTOM TEN:
40) Massachussetts $0.82
41) Colorado $0.81
42) New York $0.79
43) California $0.78
44) Delaware $0.77
45) Illinois $0.75
46) Minnesota $0.72
47) New Hampshire $0.71
48) Connecticut $0.69
49) Nevada $0.65
50) New Jersey $0.61

(Source: The Tax Foundation, US Census Bureau) http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Hmmm….anyone notice a trend about which states actually live more off the government??

mibwilso said:
Federal Dollars Spent By State Per Dollar of Federal Taxes TOP TEN1) New Mexico $2.032) Mississippi $2.023) Alaska $1.834) Louisiana $1.785) West Virginia $1.766) North Dakota $1.687) Alabama $1.668) South Dakota $1.539) Kentucky $1.5110) Virginia $1.51 BOTTOM TEN:40) Massachussetts $0.8241) Colorado $0.8142) New York $0.7943) California $0.7844) Delaware $0.7745) Illinois $0.7546) Minnesota $0.7247) New Hampshire $0.7148) Connecticut $0.6949) Nevada $0.6550) New Jersey $0.61 (Source: The Tax Foundation, US Census Bureau) http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html Hmmm….anyone notice a trend about which states actually live more off the government??

You would have a point, But if only your info wasn’t from fiscal year 2005.
And you fail to factor in the states that are most in debt and therefor the states that will be the biggest burden to the US when it comes time to bail them out.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-26/states-most-likely-to-go-bankrupt/#

illusive man said:
You would have a point, But if only your info wasn’t from fiscal year 2005.
And you fail to factor in the states that are most in debt and therefor the states that will be the biggest burden to the US when it comes time to bail them out.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-26/states-most-likely-to-go-bankrupt/#

Do you think the stats have really changed much since then?? Have Mississippi & Kentucky turned into burgeoning metropolises suddenly?

mibwilso said:
Do you think the stats have really changed much since then?? Have Mississippi & Kentucky turned into burgeoning metropolises suddenly?

Since the stock market collapse of 2008?
Yes, the states have changed quite a bit since then,

gordonbloyershow said:
What planet does this guy live on? It is clear that he is INSANE.

He lives on the planet of Massachusetts, and his name’s McGovern. What do you expect?

illusive man said:
Since the stock market collapse of 2008?
Yes, the states have changed quite a bit since then,

Ok, if you’ve got better stats, let’s bring ‘em out.

The federal government does not fund Fox News or the campaigns of any politician Democrat or Republican. This McGovern guy is off his rocker here.

Heck, it sure would be a genius idea if Fox gave all the Republican candidates their own shows, or tons of guest appearances, to help them raise funds for their campaigns. Then, if Fox REALLY likes a certain candidate, they can give that person more airtime and help them raise funds in other ways. It’s perfect because in a way, then Fox would get to elect the candidate and because of corporate personhood… kinda makes sense.

@ Snow

So now FOX is wrong because they interview sitting congress people?

Phew… it’s a good thing no other networks do that!

Clifford E.Elisary said:
Fox news is not a News Organization, it is clearly an arm of the Fox led Republican Party. In other words a PROPAGANDA MACHINE, one that the Brown Shirts of Adolph Hitler would have been envious of. Listen to them on a daily basis, listen hard what you will hear is Fox Beating a negative subject over and over again. If there is a story that they feel makes the President look bad they will show it every fifteen minutes on ever one of thier show for a day or two, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, ON EVERY SHOW….This isn’t News it Propaganda plain and simple….

Just for argument’s sake, let’s say you’re absolutely right and Roger Ailes’ salary is paid entirely by the national Republican Party. Fine. Put whoever runs the defunded NPR on Howard Dean’s payroll and then, at worst, each party’s got their own propaganda machine, so everything’s fair, right? Nah, not in your book, ’cause your rules say I have to pay for your side’s propaganda. Kind of like public employee unions, isn’t it?

This guy’s constituents are screwed.

ImNotBlue said:
It doesn’t take much to excite the angry left (like Nacho and Glacks above). A congressman makes a goofy statement about “defunding” something they have no authority over… and DON’T fund… and they just clap along.

It doesn’t take much, apparently.

Trained apes.

mibwilso said:
Federal Dollars Spent By State Per Dollar of Federal Taxes

TOP TEN
1) New Mexico $2.03
2) Mississippi $2.02
3) Alaska $1.83
4) Louisiana $1.78
5) West Virginia $1.76
6) North Dakota $1.68
7) Alabama $1.66
8) South Dakota $1.53
9) Kentucky $1.51
10) Virginia $1.51

BOTTOM TEN:
40) Massachussetts $0.82
41) Colorado $0.81
42) New York $0.79
43) California $0.78
44) Delaware $0.77
45) Illinois $0.75
46) Minnesota $0.72
47) New Hampshire $0.71
48) Connecticut $0.69
49) Nevada $0.65
50) New Jersey $0.61

(Source: The Tax Foundation, US Census Bureau) http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Hmmm….anyone notice a trend about which states actually live more off the government??

Hmmmm. States with lower media incomes tend to pay less federal income tax. Who’da thunk?

DCD-in-Indiana said:
Hmmmm. States with lower media incomes tend to pay less federal income tax. Who’da thunk?

So this is NOT a problem for you at the state level….but it IS a problem for you when wealthier individuals have to pay higher taxes? Please clarify.

DCD-in-Indiana said:
Hmmmm. States with lower media incomes tend to pay less federal income tax. Who’da thunk?

Seems pretty simple to me too.

You don’t mind when rich blue states subsidize poor Red states…..but it bothers you that wealthier individuals are asked to pay higher taxes to support poorer people.

mibwilso said:
Seems pretty simple to me too. You don’t mind when rich blue states subsidize poor Red states…..but it bothers you that wealthier individuals are asked to pay higher taxes to support poorer people.

they already do, so no need the raise them anymore see

mibwilso said:
Seems pretty simple to me too.

You don’t mind when rich blue states subsidize poor Red states…..but it bothers you that wealthier individuals are asked to pay higher taxes to support poorer people.

Um, wealthier individuals already pay higher taxes to support poorer people. Poorer people, in fact, pay no federal income tax at all.

DCD-in-Indiana said:
Um, wealthier individuals already pay higher taxes to support poorer people. Poorer people, in fact, pay no federal income tax at all.

Another trot of the FRW’s “the poor don’t pay taxes” crap.
Every person who has a legitimate, on the books, job pays taxes. They pay FICA, they pay SS, they pay Medicare. They may also pay state and/or local taxes. At the end of the year, if not enough was withheld they have to pay more.
If you make $50K and pay 10%, you are left with $45K.
If you make $5M and pay 36%, you are left with $3.2M (if you don’t find any loopholes)
I just don’t know how you’ll survive.

I agree with this guy. FOX should not receive confiscated tax dollars. FOX should be forced to sell advertising to fund their own existence and operate as a business. Competition should make FOX a better news channel and if they do a good job, maybe they’ll receive more audience share than all the others put together. Then they can serve as the target for “also ran’s” and nobody’s named Matthews.

Yeah, I like that idea. FOX should try it.

Joseph Glackin said:
Another trot of the FRW’s “the poor don’t pay taxes” crap.
Every person who has a legitimate, on the books, job pays taxes. They pay FICA, they pay SS, they pay Medicare. They may also pay state and/or local taxes. At the end of the year, if not enough was withheld they have to pay more.
If you make $50K and pay 10%, you are left with $45K.
If you make $5M and pay 36%, you are left with $3.2M (if you don’t find any loopholes)
I just don’t know how you’ll survive.

Did I say “the poor don’t pay taxes”? Nope. I don’t think I did. By the way, employees pay 4.2% FICA. As an employer, I pay 6.2%.

Similar to the Nation Guard sponsoring a NASCAR team, he suggested the Federal government should not fund by advertising on (you know how they say, “but first a word from our sponsors”) a blatant one sided political organization.

Sounds good to me, and yes, do the same to MSNBC.

I don’t want my tax money supporting extremist political cable propaganda.

This guy is have others have noted mistaken. Fox News does not receive federal funding as is the situation at NPR. However, Fox News is a right wing political operation that masquerades as an impartial media company. Just as MSNBC is not fair and balanced leaning to the left Fox News is not fair and balanced leaning to the right. Until Fox News starts to have programs that promote Democratic party candidates as contributors and analysts and hosts for that matter (Mike Huckabee) on its network than it should drop the “fair and balanced” label.

Hey there, I find an amazing

Hey there, I find an amazing web,please click the web ,you can find big pleasantly surprised
╭⌒╮WELCOME http://www.fullmalls.com/

Nacho said:
Similar to the Nation Guard sponsoring a NASCAR team, he suggested the Federal government should not fund by advertising on (you know how they say, “but first a word from our sponsors”) a blatant one sided political organization.

Sounds good to me, and yes, do the same to MSNBC.

I don’t want my tax money supporting extremist political cable propaganda.

Do the same to MSNBC because it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to advertise on a channel that no one watches.

Clifford E.Elisary said:
Fox news is not a News Organization, it is clearly an arm of the Fox led Republican Party. In other words a PROPAGANDA MACHINE, one that the Brown Shirts of Adolph Hitler would have been envious of. Listen to them on a daily basis, listen hard what you will hear is Fox Beating a negative subject over and over again. If there is a story that they feel makes the President look bad they will show it every fifteen minutes on ever one of thier show for a day or two, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, ON EVERY SHOW….This isn’t News it Propaganda plain and simple….

LOL, see it is stupid comments like this that make you the lead clown at the circus.

@ Glackin

Just for argument sake, since you think the wealthy get to keep too much of their money, how much do you think they SHOULD be “allowed” to keep? Max out at a million per person, perhaps? Give up 50 to 75% of their earnings?

What would make you happy… er… less angry.

ImNotBlue said:
A congressman makes a goofy statement about “defunding” something they have no authority over… and DON’T fund…

You don’t think congress has authority over how the department of defense spends money?

Do you think Fox runs Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard ads for free?

Fox News Channel does not accept federal funding. NPR does. The attempt to tie the two together is a Red Herring.

Defunding NPR is the right thing to do, not only because it’s an unsupportable waste of money, which even the recipient generally agree isn’t needed for it to survive, but especially because the federal government ought not subsidize a media outlet with a partisan editorial slant. That the democrats are so vociferous in the defense of it’s continued funding is proof positive that it’s for selfish reasons.

Taxpayer funds are for the good of the country, not the good of the party. End crony socialism.

Paleoconservatarian said:
…but especially because the federal government ought not subsidize a media outlet with a partisan editorial slant. That the democrats are so vociferous in the defense of it’s continued funding is proof positive that it’s for selfish reasons.

You’re playing into his argument with that statement and thinking.

He is saying the fed is subsidizing a media outlet with a partisan editorial slant (FoxNews in this case) with advertisement revenue.

The extreme right are so vociferous in the defense of FoxNews is proof positive that it’s for selfish reasons.

what an idiot.

Nacho said:
You’re playing into his argument with that statement and thinking.

He is saying the fed is subsidizing a media outlet with a partisan editorial slant (FoxNews in this case) with advertisement revenue.

The extreme right are so vociferous in the defense of FoxNews is proof positive that it’s for selfish reasons.

I’m not playing into anything. It’s Red Herring. The congress does not SUBSIDISE FNC by directly providing it operating funds, as the government does with NPR.

Nacho said:
He is saying the fed is subsidizing a media outlet with a partisan editorial slant (FoxNews in this case) with advertisement revenue.

Yes, like the Defund NASCAR hoohaw, he wants the government to stop buying effective advertising .

BTW, when you buy something from someone, you’re not subsidizing them, unless they’re not selling you something worth what you’re paying for it. There is no governmental impetus to support Fox News, and Fox doesn’t needs one. What Uncle Sam buys from them is what Uncle Sam wants and pays market rate for. And whatever that is, I haven’t seen much of it aside from recruiting ads.

Is this Congressman an example of being an “intellectual” that the left is always trying to convince us that they are?

Whoooo!

Nacho said:
He is saying the fed is subsidizing a media outlet with a partisan editorial slant (FoxNews in this case) with advertisement revenue.

You need to take a class called “Dictionary “101 – where you learn how to look up what a word “Subsidize” means.

Next take a class called “Advertising” 101 to understand how and why people buy advertising and what they hope to achieve with those dollars.

Lastly how about a class on “Green Energy” 101 – this one would explain how Green Energy, if left to compete in the market place would close its doors because it simply is unaffordable to no efficient.

If you want to recruit people for our Armed Forces, you should advertise on the network that is watched by patriotic Americans. You are not going to find them on NPR or MSNBC.

I understand that you guys are nitpicking, just like the congressman is.

The point is, federal dollars that come from my taxes are going into the pockets of Fox. Yes, they are providing a service for that money but the argument is WHY PURCHA$E that service from a biased political propaganda machine when there are plenty of other alternatives. FoxNews is funded by the revenue created from sold advertisement air time.

I do not want my tax dollars going to and sponsoring a bias one sided political propaganda machine like FoxNews or MSNBC.

You get it now? Stop spending my tax dollars by sponsoring FoxNews.

Nacho said:
I do not want my tax dollars going to and sponsoring a bias one sided political propaganda machine like FoxNews or MSNBC.

Then quit paying taxes!

You get it now?

BatBoy said:
Then quit paying taxes!

You get it now?

That’s where the problem is. Unfortunately, I don’t have that option.

When somebody advertises on Glenn Beck’s show, I choose not to purchase those products because I don’t want my money going to support Glenn Beck. That’s my choice to make in our glorious free market. Coke-a-cola sponsors my local high school team and I appreciate that so when I go to the market, even though I prefer Pepsi-cola, I buy Coke because they support my team.

When the government advertises on a far leaning political partisan cable network, what am I supposed to do? I can’t boycott my government. I either have to break the law, like you suggest, or hope a congressman will hear my concerns and do something about it. Surely FoxNews can continue on with out accepting money for air time from the federal government, can’t they?

Why did all the republicans in the house vote it down?

gordonbloyershow said:
If you want to recruit people for our Armed Forces, you should advertise on the network that is watched by patriotic Americans. You are not going to find them on NPR or MSNBC.

Since when did it become true that every patriotic American must support the right wing? Last time I remember this wasn’t a qualifier to determine patriotism.Hmmmm. You’re not a far right partisan who likes to play the patriot card are you?

Nacho said:
I understand that you guys are nitpicking, just like the congressman is.

The point is, federal dollars that come from my taxes are going into the pockets of Fox. Yes, they are providing a service for that money but the argument is WHY PURCHA$E that service from a biased political propaganda machine when there are plenty of other alternatives. FoxNews is funded by the revenue created from sold advertisement air time.

I do not want my tax dollars going to and sponsoring a bias one sided political propaganda machine like FoxNews or MSNBC.

You get it now? Stop spending my tax dollars by sponsoring FoxNews.

It’s not ‘nitpicking’, it’s a fundamental difference. Money spent on advertising buys content solely at the discretion of the purchaser. It’s politically neutral. If the government doesn’t purchase a time block, someone else will. Money given over to directly fund the operating budget of NPR doesn’t result in such a direct service; instead, it subsidizes and supports the existing editorial slant. Thus, to raise the issue of advertising on FNC in the discussion of federal funding of NPR is… a red herring.

BTW, if you don’t want your tax dollars going to a biased, one sided political propaganda machine, you’re presumably against taxpayer funding of NPR?

Paleoconservatarian said:
It’s not ‘nitpicking’, it’s a fundamental difference. Money spent on advertising buys content solely at the discretion of the purchaser.
BTW, if you don’t want your tax dollars going to a biased, one sided political propaganda machine, you’re presumably against taxpayer funding of NPR?

I, as a tax payer, am the purchaser when the fed decides to buy airtime.

As far as NPR being a biased, one sided political propaganda machine, no one has yet to show me material that has been broadcasted over NPR’s airwaves that proves that it is one. I’ve heard conservative talking heads on the radio say it was, but that doesn’t really cut it as proof to me.

So that does not weigh in my position on NPR.

Nacho said:
I, as a tax payer, am the purchaser when the fed decides to buy airtime.

As far as NPR being a biased, one sided political propaganda machine, no one has yet to show me material that has been broadcasted over NPR’s airwaves that proves that it is one. I’ve heard conservative talking heads on the radio say it was, but that doesn’t really cut it as proof to me.

So that does not weigh in my position on NPR.

The vociferousness in your defense for NPR’s funding, in keeping with those of the political left, belies your representations as to it’s neutrality.

Paleoconservatarian said:
The vociferousness in your defense for NPR’s funding, in keeping with those of the political left, belies your representations as to it’s neutrality.

I have not said one thing defending funding for NPR in this discussion.

This is the same guy who wanted to boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. And in his same logic, we should also “defund” ABC News, CNN, NBC News, CBS News, MSNBC, CNBC, Headline News, TruTV, Military Channel, ESPN, etc, etc, etc. It is called ADVERTISING Mr. McGovern. I don’t take this screw ball seriously. He supported Pay-As-You-Go, and supported TARP and the Economic Stimulus Package, both UNPAID pieces of legislation. Calls pork/earmarks “Nourishment”. Really? Can you eat or drink an earmark? No. How long do earmarks last, what 6 months, if that. So lets defund ALL advertisement for all those above. Let’s make it difficult for people to know how to get into the military. Let’s not get more willing recruits. Jim McGovern didn’t serve in the military.

Nacho said:
I have not said one thing defending funding for NPR in this discussion.

It’s good that you limited your denial of being an advocate for NPR’s continued funding to this realm of this particular discussion, and not past ones, for then your assertion would be a lie instead of merely being a deflection.

But it’s pretty clear your representation as to the neutrality of NPR is questionable. Especially in consideration that you see NPR as natural “competition” to conservative talking heads.

That’s it? Are you throwing in the tower disputing Rep Jim McGovern’s argument over the use of Federal funds?

It appears that you have conceded to the fact that when the federal government purchases commercial air time on FoxNews, they are spending tax payer dollars on a media outlet with a partisan editorial slant and that is the wrong thing to do.

I take it you will join the fight against the federal government spending money in anyway to support FoxNews and MSNBC.

Power to the people!

Funny- you sound much more like the screwball. If you had your way, there would be MILLIONS more people out of work and we’d be in the midst of a depression- perhaps a great one. Yeah, let’s do it your way. Ignore the economists and cut off our noses to spite our faces. That’s your way. Nice.

And what the HELL does serving in the military have to do with anything in this case? That selfsame military that overspent $296 BILLION in FY09 on its allocated projects? Or in 2007 when the DoD underestimated its acquisition costs by nearly $300 BILLION…leaving the taxpayer to foot the tab? Where’s your indignation over these and the many other DoD UNPAID overruns?????

Are you saying that only people with military backgrounds should serve in Congress? Next thing we know, you’ll just suggest direct military rule.

Let me make a simple guess: You NEVER focus on that kind of DoD issue, do you? Goddamnit, boy, I bet you’re not even aware of it. And using your logic…these overruns aren’t paid for, either.

Issues like…

WHERE WERE YOU when Bush and the GOP pushed through Medicare Part D bill in 2003? You know the GOP darling bill of an UNFUNDED (that’s UNPAID in your speak) $7.2 trillion payout over the next 75 years. (source for that figure: HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). Think of it- as Social Security payout if $5.9 trillion over the same time span. This is the infamous bill that forbad Medicare from bidding for less expensive drugs so as to give the GOP’s Big Pharma buddies a HUGE payout at taxpayer expense. This was very irresponsible bill was pushed through by a Republican Congress (House vote 220 – 215,Senate vote 54–44- almost completely by partisan lines) and was called by the comptroller of the nonpartisan GAO “…probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s… because we promise way more than we can afford to keep.” No wonder the GOP lost Congress after such irresponsible behavior.

Unfunded. UNPAID. $7.2 trillion Medicare bill. Bush, Cheney, and the GOP pushed it through over the objections of the Democrats. Strange case of forgetfulness you got there, buddy. Or let me guess…you don’t know about it. Tell you what. If every time you bring up TARP – which had a positive effect, you first bring up the GOP’s UNPAID $7.2 TRILLION payout to Big Pharma. Do that, and maybe you’ll have some credibility.

Let me guess again- you know NOTHING of that one – the GOP pushing through a bill that costs MORE than Social Security with NO WAY to pay for it!!!!!! Orrin Hatch (R) said of the bill, “We didn’t think of how to pay for things back then.” Yeah, let’s vote for these guys!

That “screwball” as you call him fought that $7.2 trillion GOP bill tooth and nail as the Bush Admin didn’t include a single way to pay for it. What a screwball thing to do.

And you focus on…NPR. Funding of $5 million. Keep fiddling, there, buddy. Keep focusing on funds for the poor while the DoD burns through money in the many hundreds of billions like no tomorrow.

“This culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of restraint.” SecDef Robert Gates January, 2011. Why don’t you focus on that? Why do I suspect that you know so little about it?

Paleoconservatarian: Here’s a basic rule of grammar. Use “it’s” when you want to say “it is”. Otherwise, use “its”. Thank a teacher for that simple lesson. Oh, I forgot. You guys blame teachers for the downfall of American finances while ignoring Wall Street’s role.

David said:
Funny- you sound much more like the screwball. If you had your way, there would be MILLIONS more people out of work and we’d be in the midst of a depression- perhaps a great one. Yeah, let’s do it your way. Ignore the economists and cut off our noses to spite our faces. That’s your way. Nice. . . .Paleoconservatarian: Here’s a basic rule of grammar. Use “it’s” when you want to say “it is”. Otherwise, use “its”. Thank a teacher for that simple lesson. Oh, I forgot. You guys blame teachers for the downfall of American finances while ignoring Wall Street’s role.

Hell yes! Epic Retort. Power to the working class!

David said:
Let me guess again- you know NOTHING of that one – the GOP pushing through a bill that costs MORE than Social Security with NO WAY to pay for it!!!!!! Orrin Hatch (R) said of the bill, “We didn’t think of how to pay for things back then.” Yeah, let’s vote for these guys!

That “screwball” as you call him fought that $7.2 trillion GOP bill tooth and nail as the Bush Admin didn’t include a single way to pay for it. What a screwball thing to do.

The problem, David, is not the game of “gotcha” you’re playing with your team against the GOP. The problem is unbridled anti-American LIBERALISM no matter which “team” abuses America with it.

America was never founded to have our government turn our liberty into dependence, debt, depression, and decay. This is not a partisan problem…………….it’s an anti-American problem. Yes, the GOP has imitated the Democrat Party in increasing government and debt. That’s why the Tea Party was formed and is fighting to bring about the restoration of the individual liberty and private property that brought this nation to greatness. Be helpful and stop blaming the GOP for crimes BOTH parties have perpetrated against this nation.

Davo said:
America was never founded to have our government turn our liberty into dependence, debt, depression, and decay.

Liberals are the scum of the Earth. Liberal “teachers” are lower than scum.

.. And there you have it folks another BRILLIANT democrat … LOL

Hey there, I find an amazing

Hey there, I find an amazing web,please click the web ,you can find big pleasantly surprised
╭⌒╮WELCOME http://www.fullmalls.com/
—– ~ ¤ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒╮
╭⌒╭⌒╮╭⌒╮～╭⌒╮ HANDBAG 35$
,））））,”）~~ ,”~）
╱◥█◣ ╱◥█◣ SHOES 35$
｜田｜田｜｜田｜田｜ CLOTH 15$
╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬ 2011 NEW

Paleoconservatarian said:
Fox News Channel does not accept federal funding. NPR does. The attempt to tie the two together is a Red Herring. Defunding NPR is the right thing to do, not only because it’s an unsupportable waste of money, which even the recipient generally agree isn’t needed for it to survive, but especially because the federal government ought not subsidize a media outlet with a partisan editorial slant. That the democrats are so vociferous in the defense of it’s continued funding is proof positive that it’s for selfish reasons. Taxpayer funds are for the good of the country, not the good of the party. End crony socialism.

I disagree. Tying the two together just shows where this Democrat’s head is when it comes to funding the two. He feels buy advertising time to push government programs on Fox is the same as funding NPR. Both buy time slots in which a postive view of government programs is given without looking at the negatives.

mibwilso said:
Federal Dollars Spent By State Per Dollar of Federal Taxes TOP TEN1) New Mexico $2.032) Mississippi $2.023) Alaska $1.834) Louisiana $1.785) West Virginia $1.766) North Dakota $1.687) Alabama $1.668) South Dakota $1.539) Kentucky $1.5110) Virginia $1.51 BOTTOM TEN:40) Massachussetts $0.8241) Colorado $0.8142) New York $0.7943) California $0.7844) Delaware $0.7745) Illinois $0.7546) Minnesota $0.7247) New Hampshire $0.7148) Connecticut $0.6949) Nevada $0.6550) New Jersey $0.61 (Source: The Tax Foundation, US Census Bureau) http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html Hmmm….anyone notice a trend about which states actually live more off the government??

Nobody lives off the government, they live off of money taken from fellow citizens. This is a simple fact that liberals have never grasped. Oh, and would you care to give a similar list by ethnic group?

mibwilso said:
So this is NOT a problem for you at the state level….but it IS a problem for you when wealthier individuals have to pay higher taxes? Please clarify.

Wealthier individuals DO pay higher taxes. They are also the most mobile. Perhaps you should reread the story about killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Joseph Glackin said:
Another trot of the FRW’s “the poor don’t pay taxes” crap.Every person who has a legitimate, on the books, job pays taxes. They pay FICA, they pay SS, they pay Medicare. They may also pay state and/or local taxes. At the end of the year, if not enough was withheld they have to pay more.If you make $50K and pay 10%, you are left with $45K.If you make $5M and pay 36%, you are left with $3.2M (if you don’t find any loopholes)I just don’t know how you’ll survive.

By moving to a place that likes the fact that you create jobs, exercises fiscal discipline, and doesn’t tax/spend like drunken sailors.

RichS said:
Nobody lives off the government, they live off of money taken from fellow citizens.

Yep. It’s called taxes….we pay them so that we can have things like roads, police, fire, etc.

You wingnuts love to attack the government and taxes, all the while remaining ignorant about all of the things that the government does that affects your everyday life.

The government does have some inefficiencies….but that’s better than the alternative.

Ask the folks in Afghanistan how “limited government” is working out for them. Having a government is what distinguishes us from a tribal society.

RichS said:
By moving to a place that likes the fact that you create jobs, exercises fiscal discipline, and doesn’t tax/spend like drunken sailors.

Any rational government realizes that you have to make it easy enough to do business for jobs to be created….the US has one of the lowest tax burdens in the industrialized world, despite all of the constant bitching by the wingnuts.

Asking those who benefit the most from our system of government (the wealthy) to pay Clinton-era tax rates is not unreasonable.

RichS said:
Nobody lives off the government, they live off of money taken from fellow citizens.

Such wingnut whining. It’s not “taken” from you. Regardless of how you may feel, you pay it as a condition of choosing to live here….as you would pay taxes anywhere else with a civilized society.

The entitlement mentality of conservatives is truly laughable.

Conservatives think they’re entitled to a well-functioning economy, a system of law and order, and vibrant freedoms….but don’t think they should ever have to pay for anything.

RichS said:
Wealthier individuals DO pay higher taxes. They are also the most mobile. Perhaps you should reread the story about killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Asking wealthy people to pay Clinton-era tax rates does not turn us into France…or some Socialist government.

Even if we raised taxes back to those rates, we would STILL have some of the lowest taxes of any developed country.

mibwilso said:
Yep. It’s called taxes….we pay them so that we can have things like roads, police, fire, etc. You wingnuts love to attack the government and taxes, all the while remaining ignorant about all of the things that the government does that affects your everyday life. The government does have some inefficiencies….but that’s better than the alternative. Ask the folks in Afghanistan how “limited government” is working out for them. Having a government is what distinguishes us from a tribal society.

Ok, who are you talking to now? When have I said I want no government. I point out that the government produces nothing, it just takes money from the taxpayers and uses that. This makes you see red? What is your problem? I don’t no like it when the government decides to redistribute wealth. It is not their job and, what’s more, whenever they do it they always wind up lining their own pockets first.

mibwilso said:
Asking wealthy people to pay Clinton-era tax rates does not turn us into France…or some Socialist government. Even if we raised taxes back to those rates, we would STILL have some of the lowest taxes of any developed country.

If our taxes are so low, why are so many jobs going off-shore. Taxes and regulations have a lot to do with it. Instead of me to make the cases against higher taxes, you, and the government, should have to make the case for higher taxes. Why can’t the government live within its means? Why, when they want to increase taxes, can’t they make a point by point defense of where the money is needed and whether the new tax rates aren’t going to have a negative effect on the economy. And when are we going to put a stop to the practice of politicians using tax money to buy votes? “Bringing home the bacon” which is the wasteful practice of allowing Washington to take our money in the form of taxes and then returning it to politicians districts in the form of pork laden bills. I don’t care which party does it, its wrong!

Jim McGovern is an idiot, and when stupid libs takes the road of diversion, they ought to at least run their story through the laugh-o-meter first.

The fact of all this “smoke screen” is that TRICKLE DOWN economic policies were as the HW Bush said: voodoo feconomics. He is a patriot and not adverse to the truth as so many politicians are today. Before the BUSH tax cuts or the wealthy, the nation was in a surplus position, jobs were still available to the middle class on a wide scale and our nation was healthy. Then the BUSHIES created the imbalance that has led to the decline of the nation’s economy and standard of living. And to tell you the truth, I don’t care if the KOCHS, Walton’s or Massey’s live in my state. They are drains on the society. They have no respect for people. And what is worse, they have ignorant defenders. At one time the “inheritors of wealth” were looked at with skepticism. They didn’t earn anything, they inheritied it and the Kochs and Waltons have done great damage to our democracy. Because, their wealth, which they did not earn, created a bubble and took away their conscience. Perhaps, even their salvation. After all, christians preach: TO those who are given much, much is expected. Save the souls of the rich, tax their wealth and let them really share in preserving and protecting the common good. They will thank us, some day for all that TOUGH LOVE.

RichS said:
Nobody lives off the government, they live off of money taken from fellow citizens. This is a simple fact that liberals have never grasped. Oh, and would you care to give a similar list by ethnic group?

You are wrong. Liberals know that American citizens pay taxes to the government which in turn helps to fund various things, including money to states. Red states are indeed at the top of the list at taking government money, which is the point mibwilso has made.

From what I understand, Red States also are at the top of the list in terms of being unhealthy (just saw a week or so ago the new “diabetes belt,” which is primarily in the southern states.).

Does anyone possessing beyond a 6th-Grade education actually watch Fox News?? If so, what do they glean from that vulgar anti-intellectualism?? Living their own lives of personal failure, perhaps they are merely content to viciously scratch about in their own little cat-boxes. Wrapping themselves in the flag – and calling themselves “Christian Patriots.” Ahh, the Bourgeois. Fox appeals to Nobodies – who will never be Anybodies. The sludge of our humanity.

RichS said:
If our taxes are so low, why are so many jobs going off-shore. Taxes and regulations have a lot to do with it. Instead of me to make the cases against higher taxes, you, and the government, should have to make the case for higher taxes. Why can’t the government live within its means? Why, when they want to increase taxes, can’t they make a point by point defense of where the money is needed and whether the new tax rates aren’t going to have a negative effect on the economy. And when are we going to put a stop to the practice of politicians using tax money to buy votes? “Bringing home the bacon” which is the wasteful practice of allowing Washington to take our money in the form of taxes and then returning it to politicians districts in the form of pork laden bills. I don’t care which party does it, its wrong!

Our taxes are at historic lows. The way we eventually got out of the Great Depression was because of WWII. Many people were put to work in the war efforts…..the military, manufacturing, etc. This was paid for with very high tax rates, especially on the wealthy. The highest federal tax rates at the time were over 90% for the most wealthy. These high tax rates continued throughout the 1960s, yet we still had impressive growth during this period.

We’re not going to get out of this economic mess without tax increases. Even Reagan increased taxes a number of times before eventually lowering them. I’m not suggesting a 90% rate for the top bracket, but Obama was only asking for a return to the tax rates for the most wealthy in the Clinton years (36 fo 39%)…..an era where 23 million new jobs were created.

Yes, there is some waste on pork barrel projects, but it is peanuts compared to the total federal deficit.

zsdfzfds said:
Hey there, I find an amazing

Hey there, I find an amazing web,please click the web ,you can find big pleasantly surprised
╭⌒╮WELCOME http://www.fullmalls.com/
—– ~ ¤ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒╮
╭⌒╭⌒╮╭⌒╮～╭⌒╮ HANDBAG 35$
,））））,”）~~ ,”~）
╱◥█◣ ╱◥█◣ SHOES 35$
｜田｜田｜｜田｜田｜ CLOTH 15$
╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬ 2011 NEW

Seems legit!

He’s trying to make a point but looks like a doof in the process. Is he calling for the government to stop advertising? I wouldn’t mind. A lot of money is spent by administrations to advertise their agendas. I know he was selectively trying to make a point(and failing with it), so the only sensical notion he sees to be pushing is for the gov to stop its PR through advertising. Is he trying to give the Repubs more to go after? Im sure many of them would love for the administration to stop advertising all together. What is McGovern trying to give them the idea of stopping Obama’s advertising budget?

Also I see how their can be a thin line regarding government funded news. General Electric gets billions from the federal government, tax exempt statuses, and massive weapon contracts. They own MSNBC so he would have a more competent argument saying we should “de-fund” them. Imagine the billions we would save. Sense doesn’t work in Washington

RichS said:
If our taxes are so low, why are so many jobs going off-shore. Taxes and regulations have a lot to do with it. Instead of me to make the cases against higher taxes, you, and the government, should have to make the case for higher taxes. Why can’t the government live within its means? Why, when they want to increase taxes, can’t they make a point by point defense of where the money is needed and whether the new tax rates aren’t going to have a negative effect on the economy. And when are we going to put a stop to the practice of politicians using tax money to buy votes? “Bringing home the bacon” which is the wasteful practice of allowing Washington to take our money in the form of taxes and then returning it to politicians districts in the form of pork laden bills. I don’t care which party does it, its wrong!

A few other things to note:

I don’t think lower taxes are necessarily a primary reason U.S. jobs are being shipped overseas for a number of reasons.

1. Don’t Republicans constantly say that “small business” creates the majority of jobs in this country? Small businesses do not ship jobs overseas. Large corporations are the ones that ship jobs overseas.

2. Even if taxes are lower in other countries, the fact is that a number of large corporations end up paying very little if any corporate taxes because of loopholes.

3. I believe that much lower wages in other countries is a primary reason jobs are being shipped overseas. I see various figures for the average wage in China, all of them very low. One study I saw said that the average wage in China is 57 cents an hour. Now some in this country believe that unions are the cause of our problems, demanding higher wages. Unions are not the problem. Approximately only 12% of employees are members of unions in this country. Even if you cut their wages, or the minimum wage, in half, the wages in developing countries would still be extremely low compared to ours. One could not live in this country off the wages in other countries. Now if some of these CEOs and bankers would take a much lower salary, and still be very wealthy, perhaps some of that savings could be applied elsewhere. Perhaps product pricing could be lower, benefitting consumers.

Zermatt2 said:
A few other things to note:

I don’t think lower taxes are necessarily a primary reason U.S. jobs are being shipped overseas for a number of reasons.

1. Don’t Republicans constantly say that “small business” creates the majority of jobs in this country? Small businesses do not ship jobs overseas. Large corporations are the ones that ship jobs overseas.

2. Even if taxes are lower in other countries, the fact is that a number of large corporations end up paying very little if any corporate taxes because of loopholes.

3. I believe that much lower wages in other countries is a primary reason jobs are being shipped overseas. I see various figures for the average wage in China, all of them very low. One study I saw said that the average wage in China is 57 cents an hour. Now some in this country believe that unions are the cause of our problems, demanding higher wages. Unions are not the problem. Approximately only 12% of employees are members of unions in this country. Even if you cut their wages, or the minimum wage, in half, the wages in developing countries would still be extremely low compared to ours. One could not live in this country off the wages in other countries. Now if some of these CEOs and bankers would take a much lower salary, and still be very wealthy, perhaps some of that savings could be applied elsewhere. Perhaps product pricing could be lower, benefitting consumers.

Those are a few thing to ignore, not “note.” Have you ever been in business? You are so far off base the only place you could come up with that idiocy is an anti-American Liberal blogsite.

1. YES! Small businesses outsource to wherever they can avoid the crushing regulations and taxes that anti-Americans demand. Staying around and continuing to be raped by Democrats is only a dream of the anti-American Left. Now, you COULD erect an iron curtain…………………

2. Nosir. Large Corporations don’t actually pay ANY taxes. It’s you SUCKERS who pay the taxes. Tax, like every other expense of doing business is reflected in the price of the goods or services purchased by the consumers. Evil anti-Americans find you DIMS easy to stoke emotionally into your familiar mode of hatred and jealousy, just long enough to slip it to you claiming to punish the “evil” corporations.

3. Unions have perpetrated the same scam against business that the anti-Americans have against our citizenry through Social Security and the other “entitlements.” Unions, with the help of their Democrat politicians, forced our auto industry (for example) to pay outrageous benefits including insane retirement pay that presumed the industry would NEVER have any down turns…………….a really stupid and destructive presumption. Now, industry is all but extinct yet the Democrats and union thugs demand taxpayers pay what industry cannot.

Now, if some of these Democrats and union thugs would take a much lower salary and less money-laundered campaign donations, and still be very wealthy, perhaps some of that savings could be applied elsewhere.

Davo said:
Those are a few thing to ignore, not “note.” Have you ever been in business? You are so far off base the only place you could come up with that idiocy is an anti-American Liberal blogsite. 1. YES! Small businesses outsource to wherever they can avoid the crushing regulations and taxes that anti-Americans demand. Staying around and continuing to be raped by Democrats is only a dream of the anti-American Left. Now, you COULD erect an iron curtain………………… 2. Nosir. Large Corporations don’t actually pay ANY taxes. It’s you SUCKERS who pay the taxes. Tax, like every other expense of doing business is reflected in the price of the goods or services purchased by the consumers. Evil anti-Americans find you DIMS easy to stoke emotionally into your familiar mode of hatred and jealousy, just long enough to slip it to you claiming to punish the “evil” corporations. 3. Unions have perpetrated the same scam against business that the anti-Americans have against our citizenry through Social Security and the other “entitlements.” Unions, with the help of their Democrat politicians, forced our auto industry (for example) to pay outrageous benefits including insane retirement pay that presumed the industry would NEVER have any down turns…………….a really stupid and destructive presumption. Now, industry is all but extinct yet the Democrats and union thugs demand taxpayers pay what industry cannot. Now, if some of these Democrats and union thugs would take a much lower salary and less money-laundered campaign donations, and still be very wealthy, perhaps some of that savings could be applied elsewhere.

Your comments are to be ignored.

I didn’t get my comments from an “anti-American” liberal blog site. I don’t think I have seen my arguments on such sites, of which I generally only look at 2 or 3 every now and then.

Yes, I have been in business. I have been in business since I was 17, although I am unemployed now, just doing some minimal freelance work/consulting. I have done well in my career.

I worked for a small business for some 15 years; I later worked for a large corporation, and I spent a number of years working for that corporation in Europe starting a new business. 11 people, including myself, started that business. When I left, there were some 2000 employees.

I have never been in a union, but I support unions. My father was in a teacher’s union, and there is no way he could have supported his family without being in a union. And, in spite of the fact that he was in a union, he never really made that much money. By the time I was 30, I was already making more money than my dad was when he retired.

You and your “evil anti-American” BS. You must listen too much to beck, palin, bachmann, and other lying, evil fascist thugs.

Davo said:
Those are a few thing to ignore, not “note.” Have you ever been in business? You are so far off base the only place you could come up with that idiocy is an anti-American Liberal blogsite. 1. YES! Small businesses outsource to wherever they can avoid the crushing regulations and taxes that anti-Americans demand. Staying around and continuing to be raped by Democrats is only a dream of the anti-American Left. Now, you COULD erect an iron curtain………………… 2. Nosir. Large Corporations don’t actually pay ANY taxes. It’s you SUCKERS who pay the taxes. Tax, like every other expense of doing business is reflected in the price of the goods or services purchased by the consumers. Evil anti-Americans find you DIMS easy to stoke emotionally into your familiar mode of hatred and jealousy, just long enough to slip it to you claiming to punish the “evil” corporations. 3. Unions have perpetrated the same scam against business that the anti-Americans have against our citizenry through Social Security and the other “entitlements.” Unions, with the help of their Democrat politicians, forced our auto industry (for example) to pay outrageous benefits including insane retirement pay that presumed the industry would NEVER have any down turns…………….a really stupid and destructive presumption. Now, industry is all but extinct yet the Democrats and union thugs demand taxpayers pay what industry cannot. Now, if some of these Democrats and union thugs would take a much lower salary and less money-laundered campaign donations, and still be very wealthy, perhaps some of that savings could be applied elsewhere.

And, by the way, you’re probably not bright enough to realize something I said in my reply above. You said that I am (Democrats are) easily are stoked “emotionally into your famliar mode of hatred and jealousy.” If you notice what I said, I said that I started working for a small company. I later worked for a large corporation. I am neither hateful, nor am I jealous, of small businesses or large corporations, although there can be improvements in any type of business.

And, speaking of “hatred,” notice the tone of your response; notice the name calling you do (“Dims,” “raped by Democrats,” “evil anti-Americans,” etc., etc. I very often see conservatives claim that all liberals can do is call names, but that is exactly what many conservatives such as yourself do, as in your post here.

I should also point out that while working for both the small business as well as the large corporation, there were years (depending upon bonuses) that I was in the top tax bracket. I could care less if I paid 36% or 39% federal income tax. The fact is, I made so much money, I couldn’t spend it all. I could invest much of that money and make even more money. Many, many people in this country, including union people, don’t make that type of money and cannot invest, as I have. You take those teachers in Wisconsin who might be making $40K or $50K in total a year, and then take benefits away from them, how in the world are they going to invest, as your suggest?

Nachi said:
Does anyone possessing beyond a 6th-Grade education actually watch Fox News?

Ah yes, nothing intelligent to say, but feels compelled to add his proggie rant as instructed by his puppetmaster. Although the attempted marginalization by insulting intelligence used to work to an extent, (an Alinsky tactic) it’s become kind of like yelling “racism”, it just doesn’t work if that’s what comes out of your hole 24/7.

Democratic Rep. McGovern On Defunding NPR: ‘We Should Be Fair And Balanced’ And Defund Fox News

WHAT AN INSUFFERABLE MORON! The nut does not fall far from the tree! This ranks right up there with the Democrat buffoon, Hank Johnson, who asked an Admiral whether Guam might tip over if too many people were gathered on one side.

http://www.4yourcountry.org/2010/04/fear-of-quam-tipping-over-rep-johnson-asks-nasa-to-investigate.html

Nacho said:
That’s it? Are you throwing in the tower disputing Rep Jim McGovern’s argument over the use of Federal funds?

It appears that you have conceded to the fact that when the federal government purchases commercial air time on FoxNews, they are spending tax payer dollars on a media outlet with a partisan editorial slant and that is the wrong thing to do.

I take it you will join the fight against the federal government spending money in anyway to support FoxNews and MSNBC.

Power to the people!

I conceded to tiredness and bed.

For your edification, I’ll repeat that we ought to end such crony socialism as the direct funding of NPR; on both the moral grounds that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize a news outlet with a decidedly partisan editorial slant and on the financial grounds of ending wasteful discretionary spending, representative of our former largess, unsupportable in today’s rapidly rising $14+ trillion debt. The subject of advertising buys, which aren’t subsidies, is an entirely different issue and, in relation to the larger debate, is a red herring.

David said:
Paleoconservatarian: Here’s a basic rule of grammar. Use “it’s” when you want to say “it is”. Otherwise, use “its”. Thank a teacher for that simple lesson. Oh, I forgot. You guys blame teachers for the downfall of American finances while ignoring Wall Street’s role.

I most definitely blame them, and especially their unions which protect those that oughtn’t hold teaching positions, for ever lower standards of education that produce a society with casual disregard for language rules. But I thank you for the correction; irregardless of the intent you had in giving it, I’ll use the reminder to strengthen the appearance of my arguments.

Paleoconservatarian said:
I conceded to tiredness and bed. For your edification, I’ll repeat that we ought to end such crony socialism as the direct funding of NPR; on both the moral grounds that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize a news outlet with a decidedly partisan editorial slant and on the financial grounds of ending wasteful discretionary spending, representative of our former largess, unsupportable in today’s rapidly rising $14+ trillion debt. The subject of advertising buys, which aren’t subsidies, is an entirely different issue and, in relation to the larger debate, is a red herring. I most definitely blame them, and especially their unions which protect those that oughtn’t hold teaching positions, for ever lower standards of education that produce a society with casual disregard for language rules. But I thank you for the correction; irregardless of the intent you had in giving it, I’ll use the reminder to strengthen the appearance of my arguments.

I wish someone who makes such arguements would prove a few things:

1. How does NPR have a “decidedly partisan slant?” Sure, over the course of its history, it has had some liberal commentators, but on their discussion shows, they very often have both liberals and conservatives. Their actual news programs are decidedly non-partisan. If you actually listen to the “hard news,” it is some of the most unbiased news reporting you will hear anywhere. Yes, Ron Schiller made this comments about the tea party, but Ron Schiller had nothing to do with programming on NPR. He was in charge of fund raising. And, although it wasn’t right for him to make such comments, please tell me of a single person you know who is not biased in at least a small way. And, although it wasn’t right, that scumbag O’Keefe once again edited the video to make things look worse than they really were. (And, O’Keefe is a scumbag…..lying about being telephone company employees in order to get into Mary Landrieu’s office to bug her phone system; trying to entrap that female CNN reporter by attempting to get her onto his “loveboat,” full of champagne and sex toys; heavily editing videos; etc.).

If you’re so hot and bothered about NPR and PBS, I wonder if you want to completely defund government spending on our national museum, the Smithsonian? I compare NPR and PBS to the Smithsonian. Unfortunately, you probably do want to completely defund the Smithsonian.

If some member NPR and PBS stations go under as a result of any government defunding, that would contribute to the “dumbing down” of America. We are far from number one in education in the world.

2. Yes, there are bad teachers. But please provide proof that there is an abundance of bad teachers. You cannot because there is no proof. LIke any profession, there are good, and there are bad ones. While there really isn’t any “hard data” to show this, I have seen some observational studies which indicate that a very low percentage of teachers actually are “bad” and, in fact, most are good.

Test scores do not necessarily prove a teacher to be bad. I strongly believe many students do poorly because their parents do not raise their kids correctly; they let them watch far too many video games and TV; they may have problems of their own such as alcoholism and drug use; they simply do not instill discipline in their kids the way they should. Further, I believe some kids probably do poorly in school because of their neighborhood…..poor, full of crime, etc. Why don’t we do something about the poor and crime, rather than blame this all on teachers?

3. Unions aren’t the problem. You telling me that someone only making $30,000 to $50,000 a year is making a lot of money because of the unions? Heck, if it were not for the unions, these teachers would make even less and have less benefits. Analyses have shown that, in spite of what conservatives claim, doing an apples-to-apples comparison, taking into account things like education, public employees actually make less than their private employee counterparts.

4. I don’t have a problem with doing something about unions protecting bad teachers, but don’t bash them all. And, again, show me data which indicates that there is a large number of “bad” teachers.

5. You bash the teachers and their unions, but the country of Finland is widely acknowledged as having one of the best if not the best educational system in the world. There are several interesting facts behind this. First, nearly 98% of Finnish teachers are unionized, and they have very strong unions. Second, bringing in non-educators to run school systems is completely foreign to the Finnish system (unlike our system). Third, in this country, everything, including education, is considered to be competition. It’s something in our blood, in our culture. In Finland, education is consider to be a cooperative thing. Finnish teachers do not compete with one another. They work together to educate school kids, and they do so very effectively.

I will end by saying that union membership has decreased to only about 12% in this country. So, the number of union teachers, percentage-wise, is even less than this. Union teachers do not make up a large percentage of the work force, given that there are many other types of unions out there….actors, police, firemen, auto makers, electrical workers, iron workers, and, yes, even sports players, including the NFL who looks like they will go on strike this coming season.

Zermatt2 said:
How does NPR have a “decidedly partisan slant?”

Dude! What the hell have you been smoking?

X-3 said:
Dude! What the hell have you been smoking?

Dude! With all of the Republican and conservative nonsense out there, I sure could use a good smoke, but I don’t smoke, regular or otherwise.

Good question, though, if asked of repubs and conservatives!

When organizational members from sales aren’t on tape (even if the person secretly taping him is a scumbag who doesn’t receive federal subsidies) bashing political movements in the vilest of terms, NPR hosts and ombudsmans themselves will readily admit a liberal bias at NPR.

To the last 4 points, I speak of unionized teachers providing less than stellar guidance mainly because it was in my experience. And though I might be able to substantiate the role of poor teachers, I’d rather leave it at that since I only raised the topic in response to a quip.

X-3 said:
(NPR) Dude! What the hell have you been smoking?

Dude! Compared to Fox News and MSNBC, NPR is about as vanilla as you can get. Myself, im not that big a fan of NPR, unless im trying to fall asleep. PBS, on the other hand, is the shit. It’s a great place to escape the regular vitriol of typical broadcasting for informative programing, such as NOVA.

I understand your dilemma about the subsidies and can even sympathize with you to a point. I can even agree with cutting some of those allocated funds, in times like these. But, in the end, I think partially funding PBS/NPR is tax $$$ well spent relative to the billions we spend on blowing up huts made out of camel shit and sand…..And propping up fascist dictators……And playing global Big Brother.

In other words, maintaining the empire that’s going to be the cause of our demise.

Paleoconservatarian said:
When organizational members from sales aren’t on tape (even if the person secretly taping him is a scumbag who doesn’t receive federal subsidies) bashing political movements in the vilest of terms, NPR hosts and ombudsmans themselves will readily admit a liberal bias at NPR. To the last 4 points, I speak of unionized teachers providing less than stellar guidance mainly because it was in my experience. And though I might be able to substantiate the role of poor teachers, I’d rather leave it at that since I only raised the topic in response to a quip.

I don’t listen to NPR 24/7, but I honestly believe that the programs I listen to on NPR are not biased. I will say unabashedly that I absolutely hear no bias in the “hard news” programs. On some of the discussion programs, I often will hear both conservatives and liberals rationally discussing their respective sides about an issue. I do not hear the yelling and screaming that I hear on discussion programs on cable. I do not hear the very often cutting off of guests that I hear on cable programs, notably on Fox News. And, I have watched Bill O’Reilly very often these past 8 or 9 years. I rarely watch Hannity because I cannot stand him, but whenever I have watched him, he often is just as I have described. I hardly ever watch Beck, although in his first few months at Fox, I did watch entire programs (really don’t now how I managed that)…it has been documented that beck has used the Hitler/nazi analogy with Obama hundreds of times. This is unacceptable, and all of these things are things you simply do not hear on NPR.

I listened to two NPR programs today, programs which I listen to every so often….”Car Talk” and “Zorba Paster on your Health.” The only way I can say that these programs are “biased” or are “liberal” is that the hosts are very pleasant people who like to joke with their guests but yet give very helpful advice about automobiles and health issues, respectively. In general, I find conservatives are more vile and hateful than I find liberals, especially those on cable and AM radio programs, so perhaps programs such as these, because there is not the yelling and screaming; there is not the name calling; etc., perhaps these reasons contribute to the belief that NPR is heavily biased to the left. I honestly believe this.

When I talk about the vile rhetoric of conservatives, look at AM talk radio. Most of the most popular people on AM talk radio are yellers and screamers. Most of them are conservatives. They are name callers. Look at Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Neil Boortz, and others. Limbaugh in fact has the number one radio talk show program, and he is habitually yelling and screaming. I don’t listen to him very often, but when I do, he almost always is yelling and screaming and calling liberals and Democrats names. In almost every video I see of him, he is wildly flailing his hands and arms. He is one very angry, bitter man.

Yes, there are and have been angry liberals, but they come nowhere close to the number of angry conservatives in the media; they come nowhere close to the sheer magnitude of their influence that conservatives have. Conservatives love to cite Keith Olbermann, and, yes, he is an angry liberal. However, I have seen KO actually apologize for things he has said; I cannot say the same for the right. Further, Fox News pundits often claim that they “kill” MSNBC in the ratings, so why does MSNBC even matter?

So this is one reason why I believe many conservatives believe NPR is heavily biased to the left. NPR doesn’t have this vile rhetoric, which, apparently some like. If there isn’t the yelling and screaming and bashing of liberals, then the station must have a liberal bent.

Although NPR hosts and ombudsmans admit to a liberal bias at NPR, I also believe NPR isn’t sticking up for themselves. Further, the fact that NPR hosts and ombudsman say this tells me they are not as biased as claimed. Note that the first I heard of O’Keefe’s latest sting was on NPR.

As far as the unionized teachers are concerned, I had public school teachers in grade school. I cannot remember a single “bad” teacher I had. In fact, most of them were stellar. I remember several who had a huge influence on me….a couple of English teachers, one of my math teachers, and one of my science teachers.

I went to a private Jesuit high school as well as a very expensive private university. I can remember one “bad” teacher at the university I went to. She was very, very intelligent and really knew her “stuff” about a very complex topic; but, she was very, very boring. I fell asleep a couple of times in her class.

I really do take offense when people bash unions and teachers in particular. There is no evidence that there are mass numbers of “bad” teachers. Also, I have said elsewhere that I am not a member of a union; I never have been a member of a union. Yet, I do support unions. My dad was a teacher, belonging to a union. So, yes, I support unions which, by the way, over the course of our history, have given us the 40 hour work week, paid vacation, and other benefits that have allowed the middle class to prosper with decent wages, safer working conditions, etc. Personally, I don’t mind working long hours; I have worked 60 to 80 hour weeks (on salary….no OT); I have gone without a single day off, including weekends, for months at a time, several times in my career. But the fact is, while I haven’t minded working so much, my personal life has suffered. I think what unions have done has been a very good thing for many, many people.

If you look at the polls in Wisconsin, an overwhelming majority of people do not want union collective bargaining rights to be taken away, and this figure includes non-union people. The funny thing is, from what I understand, the Wisconsin unions for public employees agreed to most if not all of the truly fiscal demands that Scott Walker wanted; their protests were over the loss of collective bargaining rights.

Zermatt2 said:
When I talk about the vile rhetoric of conservatives, look at AM talk radio. Most of the most popular people on AM talk radio are yellers and screamers. Most of them are conservatives. They are name callers. Look at Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Neil Boortz, and others. Limbaugh in fact has the number one radio talk show program, and he is habitually yelling and screaming. I don’t listen to him very often, but when I do, he almost always is yelling and screaming and calling liberals and Democrats names. In almost every video I see of him, he is wildly flailing his hands and arms. He is one very angry, bitter man.

Yes, there are and have been angry liberals, but they come nowhere close to the number of angry conservatives in the media; they come nowhere close to the sheer magnitude of their influence that conservatives have. Conservatives love to cite Keith Olbermann, and, yes, he is an angry liberal. However, I have seen KO actually apologize for things he has said; I cannot say the same for the right. Further, Fox News pundits often claim that they “kill” MSNBC in the ratings, so why does MSNBC even matter?

So this is one reason why I believe many conservatives believe NPR is heavily biased to the left. NPR doesn’t have this vile rhetoric, which, apparently some like. If there isn’t the yelling and screaming and bashing of liberals, then the station must have a liberal bent.

YES! I understand a lot of what you are saying. This portion really nails it for me.

These right wing extremists think if it does not fit in their right wing fringe state of mind, it is ALL left wing bias.

Its scary that their minority voice is so loud that the republican representatives are so weak minded, scared, and impelled to act on it. The minority extremist somehow have these cowardly representatives in their pockets.

nrgetick said:
Dude! Compared to Fox News and MSNBC, NPR is about as vanilla as you can get. Myself, im not that big a fan of NPR, unless im trying to fall asleep. PBS, on the other hand, is the shit. It’s a great place to escape the regular vitriol of typical broadcasting for informative programing, such as NOVA. I understand your dilemma about the subsidies and can even sympathize with you to a point. I can even agree with cutting some of those allocated funds, in times like these. But, in the end, I think partially funding PBS/NPR is tax $$$ well spent relative to the billions we spend on blowing up huts made out of camel shit and sand…..And propping up fascist dictators……And playing global Big Brother. In other words, maintaining the empire that’s going to be the cause of our demise.

Dude! You’re one Dude I can agree with!

I say that NPR and PBS are the Smithsonian Institutions of the media. They all provide useful and informative programming about the news and current events, as well as cultural items, and they do so without the vitriol you hear on commercial networks. If NPR and PBS are completely defunded, that may in fact turn NPR and PBS into truly very biased media outlets with, perhaps, the angry vitriol we hear on current commerical media outlets. With the government (taxpayers) currently funding a small amount to NPR and PBS, that puts pressure on NPR and PBS to try to be as unbiased as possible. Even though I am liberal, I don’t want to always hear the bickering that goes on in commercial media programs.

I’d even agree with you that in these tough economic times, perhaps some funding cuts would be acceptable, but I also agree with you that in the long run, these are dollars well spent.

I again have to ask our conservative friends if they think we should fully defund the Smithsonian, our national museum. Many Americans will never see the Smithsonian, so is that a reason to defund it completely? I think the government does have a small role to play in supporting educational and informational resources like the Smithsonian, NPR, and PBS.

Time to hit the sack, Dude!

Comparing taxpayer funding of the Smithsonian (a national museum) to taxpayer funding of NPR & PBS (public media outlets) is laughable. While I agree with you PBS and NPR are less biased than cable OR MSM news, this does not justify tax payer funding. Both PBS & NPR do have some bias, (I can provide links to several examples if needed) while the Smithsonian, to my knowledge, does not.

I too watch & enjoy PBS but must admit have never listened to NPR. Wouldn’t it be nice if the MSM just provided unbiased news? I know there’s a market for it, unfortunately it currently doesn’t exist.

Paleoconservatarian said:
When organizational members from sales aren’t on tape (even if the person secretly taping him is a scumbag who doesn’t receive federal subsidies) bashing political movements in the vilest of terms, NPR hosts and ombudsmans themselves will readily admit a liberal bias at NPR..

Fox news bitching about the political bias of a NPR…… ha ha ha ha ha ha
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/16/earth-tax-dollars-npr/#ixzz1HD2912li

“Ira Glass(npr): Journalism, in general, reporters tend to be Democrats and tend to be more liberal than the public as a whole, sure. But that doesn’t change what is going out over the air. And I feel like, well, let’s measure the product.”

“Sorry, Ira, but you’re wrong. It does change what’s going out over the air. You stuff a newsroom with a bunch of progressives and nary a conservative and you will definitely get a product that at least tilts left.”
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
First of all I disagree with Ira about his statement overgeneralizing reporters/journalism as being liberal/ democratic. Thats just flat out retarded, the NEWS is supposed to be OBJECTIVE. Sure, at the end of the day we all have our own biases, but real journalism sacrifices that freedom to effectively communicate the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of the story. Indeed we should measure the product.

Secondly….WTF!!!! Faux news….criticizing the partisan bias of another new organization! ha ha I mean jesus christ!!! What does it say about its own objectivity when the majority of its media correspondents not only have direct ties with the Republican party and Conservative think tanks, but one of its top financiers is an islamic globalist/industrialist. (Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal). ha ha. Yea, im sure fox news wouldn’t exploit that if the shoe were on the other foot……unless it were the muslim brotherhood. lol

Even more ironic, yet not surprising, is the fact that fox news uses itself as a PAC to funnel billions of dollars to the republican party and conservative candidates. Coincidentally enough, all the top republican delegates for the upcoming 2012 presidential bid happen to make up a small handful of its own employees,…. who get paid to stump leading up to the election .

Does that seem like the role of a News Organization to you? You can’t see any conflict of interest there? Yes, they can do this, its a free country…but calling itself a News Station…A fair and balanced one at that…..ha ha ha ha ..and dont give me that MSNBC false equivalency bullshit. Only in their wildest dreams does their propaganda have anything that resembles the kind of political/corporate infrastructure of fox news.

oops…..that last parts supposed to be Msnbc equivalency

Zermatt2 says:
March 20, 2011 at 11:42 pm Zermatt2(Quote)
If some member NPR and PBS stations go under as a result of any government defunding, that would contribute to the “dumbing down” of America. We are far from number one in education in the world

As Schiller himself states, NPR can exist by itself without government funding. One would hope Schiller has extensive knowledge of this subject with the former title of President of Fundraising and SVP of Development (but based on the unsubstantiated comments of him and some of the other NPR executives, you’re right, this could be a possibility). Lastly, thanks for the reminder we are far from number one in education in the world! What do you think, maybe if we funded an additional 10 to 20 state-run media stations, we might be #1, right? What country should America aspire? Something more along the lines of China or Venezuela? Would this make us #1, in your opinion? Also might I suggest on our quest to the top, maybe one day, we can even censor those private media stations to prevent the “dumbing down” of America with information inconsistent with the state run media.

WaterLoo said:
Comparing taxpayer funding of the Smithsonian (a national museum) to taxpayer funding of NPR & PBS (public media outlets) is laughable. While I agree with you PBS and NPR are less biased than cable OR MSM news, this does not justify tax payer funding. Both PBS & NPR do have some bias, (I can provide links to
several examples if needed) while the Smithsonian, to my knowledge, does not. .

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-11-30/news/27082769_1_ant-video-today-natural-history-museum exhibit

Actually seeing how spineless/capitulating the Smithsonian is to religo-conservative fear mongering….. , I conclude it DOES have a liberal bias.

“I agree with you PBS and NPR are less biased than cable OR MSM news, this does not justify tax payer funding”

As a public service, I think it rightfully justifies tax payer funding. In terms of manufacturing a bias, at this time, I’m more concerned about the effects and influence of corporate leverage. As a public utility, we can atleast hold them closer to the objectives of real journalism than we can “Big Media.”

“Wouldn’t it be nice if the MSM just provided unbiased news? I know there’s a market for it, unfortunately it currently doesn’t exist.”

Thats because our media is owned by a small handful of globalists. It’s in the interest of their plutocracy to keep us dumbed down, passive, and fighting with each other over stupid trivial bullshit and ideological schisms that cease to exist.

WaterLoo said:
Comparing taxpayer funding of the Smithsonian (a national museum) to taxpayer funding of NPR & PBS (public media outlets) is laughable. While I agree with you PBS and NPR are less biased than cable OR MSM news, this does not justify tax payer funding. Both PBS & NPR do have some bias, (I can provide links to several examples if needed) while the Smithsonian, to my knowledge, does not. I too watch & enjoy PBS but must admit have never listened to NPR. Wouldn’t it be nice if the MSM just provided unbiased news? I know there’s a market for it, unfortunately it currently doesn’t exist.

No, comparing NPR and PBS with the Smithsonian is not laughable.

1. First, I did not claim that less or no bias at NPR and PBS in and of itself justifies public funding. But the fact that there is less, or, in my case, I believe no bias in the programs I listen to (notably, news programs) destroys the argument that many have that NPR not only is very biased towards the left, but, in fact, is a “Communist” network. I see many make such comments. I simply do not accept the argument that NPR and PBS are greatly biased towards the left. I am quite sure many of its employees might be liberal, but that doesn’t mean the programs they are on are biased to the left.

The only argument I might accept to defund NPR is that perhaps the government (taxpayers) should not be helping to fund NPR and PBS because we are in a severe budget crisis. But, even then, the amount going to NPR and PBS is very small; even a full defunding of NPR and PBS will not put a dent in the budget deficit. I believe that the belief that NPR is a very biased media outlet is due to the fact that Republicans and conservatives like to use the “big lie” technique…..repeat a lie over and over and over again (that NPR is biased), and more and more people will believe it. You constantly hear this meme that NPR is biased from conservative commentators.

2. Further, the Smithsonian displays artifacts of our history; it displays artifacts of our culture. NPR and PBS also has programming about American history and culture. I often hear interviews with musicians of various sorts; I often hear interviews of American authors of various sorts; I hear interviews with actors, directors, and producers (oh, yeah, the Hollywood elite….all liberal, of course). The Smithsonian, NPR, and PBS all provide cultural programming and exhibits/programs about history.

3. I don’t listen to NPR 24/7, so I am sure there are some programs that have liberal hosts and guests. I can’t remember the guy’s name, but he is a well known liberal. In the past, Bill O’Reilly and his crew has had run-ins with him, and BOR has criticized him. He no longer works for NPR. But do you condemn the entire military because of incidents such as what happened at Abu Ghraib? Similarly, you cannot condemn all of NPR and say all or most of its programming is biased based on a couple of examples.

4. Very recently, the Smithsonian was accused of having liberal bias when last year, there was a huge controversy over one particular exhibit. That exhibit was a video of a Jesus on a crucifix, with ants crawling over it. The video just looped over and over again. The exhibit was meant to show how lonely and isolated AIDs patients can be….the artist who created it died of AIDs in the 1980s. After loud criticism from Republicans and the Catholic Church who claimed that tax payer dollars should not fund such exhibits, the exhibit was removed. This particular exhibit was paid for with private dollars. Signs were posted indicating it might be offensive to people. Yet Republicans, notably Eric Cantor, called for investigations into the Smithsonian’s funding.

5. You could say that art itself is a liberal thing. Yes, I know conservatives like the Koch brothers have provided a lot of support to the arts, including the Smithsonian, but you can’t tell me that people like Andy Warhol and Annie Leibowitz were/are conservatives. They have had exhibits at the Smithsonian. When George McGovern ran against Nixon, the Democrats asked Andy Warhol if he could help in their campaign. He made a painting with Nixon and McGovern. It depicted Nixon as an angry, ugly man but depicted McGovern as a cheerful one. The caption said “Vote McGovern.” Andy Warhol was no conservative. So why should any of his work be featured in the Smithsonian? He obviously was a liberal. I’d be willing to bet that most artists, regardless of the medium, are liberal.

6. It should be known that in the past, NPR actually has been accused of having a conservative bias. It was accused by some of supporting the Iraq war. It has been accused by some of having much more commentary by conservative think tanks rather than liberal think tanks.

7. Studies/polls have suggested that people who listen to NPR are more informed than those who get their news from other media. This is like people who go to museums….I’d be willing to bet these people are generally more informed and know history better than those who do not go to museums.

So I stand by my comparisons of NPR/PBS with the Smithsonian. I hear the arguments that NPR/PBS are liberally biased; I hear arguments that say why should I pay for something I do not listen to. NPR/PBS provide valuable news and cultural programming, just as the Smithsonian does with cultural exhibits. Many, many people will never visit the Smithsonian, so with these types of arguments, why should these people help fund the Smithsonian? And, you could say that the Smithsonian is a liberal institution, just because of the very nature of art. I know a number of people in the art world, and they are all quite liberal…..including a person who is a curator at one of the museums.

By the way, there is a market for unbiased news reporting. NPR does have some 20 million listeners a week.

WaterLoo said:
Zermatt2 says:March 20, 2011 at 11:42 pm Zermatt2(Quote)If some member NPR and PBS stations go under as a result of any government defunding, that would contribute to the “dumbing down” of America. We are far from number one in education in the world As Schiller himself states, NPR can exist by itself without government funding. One would hope Schiller has extensive knowledge of this subject with the former title of President of Fundraising and SVP of Development (but based on the unsubstantiated comments of him and some of the other NPR executives, you’re right, this could be a possibility). Lastly, thanks for the reminder we are far from number one in education in the world! What do you think, maybe if we funded an additional 10 to 20 state-run media stations, we might be #1, right? What country should America aspire? Something more along the lines of China or Venezuela? Would this make us #1, in your opinion? Also might I suggest on our quest to the top, maybe one day, we can even censor those private media stations to prevent the “dumbing down” of America with information inconsistent with the state run media.

Yes, Schiller should have a lot of knowledge in this area, but other NPR executives have said otherwise. They also should have knowledge in this area. Schiller, by the way, before the O’Keefe incident, had already said he would be leaving NPR; he was talking with people who claimed to want to make a huge donation to NPR. I think many people, if they don’t think they are being entrapped, would make similar type statements to someone you believe to be friendly towards your organization. I have not seen much of the video, but I have read summaries of it. From what I understand, Schiller’s point was that it would be a lot easier if he didn’t have to go through government red tape in order to receive government funding.

Your argument about me wanting to have 10 to 20 more “state-run” media outlets is a specious argument. (“state-run” sounds as if you are calling NPR a “commie” network…..something I refuse to admit, and it shows your extremism here). This is the same type of argument with those who are against gay marriage and use an argument that if we allow gay marriage, that will lead to us allowing polygamy or perhaps marriage between humans and animals.

My belief is that what we have, NPR and PBS, is enough. I’m not calling for any more of these so-called “state run” media outlets. If you recall, I mentioned Finland as an example of one of the best education systems in the world. They hold firmly the belief that more is not better. Their students actually spend less time in school than many other nations. We all have a vested interest in our citizens, notably children, getting a good education and being knowledgeable about the world. I believe NPR and PBS fulfill part of this goal.

No, the country we should aspire to is not China or Venezuela. The country we should aspire to is America, but unfortunately, it is very true that we are not close to being number one in a number of areas. Our kids score much lower on math and science tests than do those in other countries. Look it up….there are many links that indicate where we stand in the world with regard to education, healthcare, etc.

Your last statement is utterly absurd. While I personally would like to see the limbaughs and becks of the world shut down, I know that is not what a Democracy is about. It should not happen; it will never happen. Utterly absurd comment.

Zermatt2 said:
You and your “evil anti-American” BS. You must listen too much to beck, palin, bachmann, and other lying, evil fascist thugs.

Fascism is purely a parent of Liberalism. It is the heavy-handed government the opposite of the small government founded by our framers and supported by Right Wing Conservatives. Socialists Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini showed the world the end result of the Leftist agenda, and it cannot be more un-American or anti-American.

Liberals’ worst nightmare is true……………America was founded as a Right Wing Conspiracy. The Constitution was written for the sole purpose of protecting America from Liberalism…………………….that’s why the anti-American Left has worked diligently to circumvent and pervert the Constitution in order to “legitimize” the illegitimate. No need to shy away from the anti-Americanism of the LIberal mindset. Be proud of what you are. Just understand that there are those of us still in the majority in America that recognize that anti-American stance and will endeavor to marginalize those effects to this great nation.

Zermatt2 said:
But the fact that there is less, or, in my case, I believe no bias in the programs I listen to (notably, news programs) destroys the argument that many have that NPR not only is very biased towards the left, but, in fact, is a “Communist” network. I see many make such comments. I simply do not accept the argument that NPR and PBS are greatly biased towards the left.

Nope. You are not in any position to “destroy the argument ” that NPR is Leftist-biased. NPR, like the majority of academia, is part of the snowball effect of Liberals promoting Liberals and Liberals leading LIberals. With the epidemic of Liberalism infecting so many people, it probably IS hard to notice the bias from that extremely limited perspective. So what you simply refuse to “accept” is irrelevant.

Zermatt2 said:
It should be known that in the past, NPR actually has been accused of having a conservative bias. It was accused by some of supporting the Iraq war. It has been accused by some of having much more commentary by conservative think tanks rather than liberal think tanks.

Who “accused” NPR of being conservative…………YOU? Name the Conservative think tanks on NPR that have “much more commentary than liberals.” Friggin’ delusional Lib.

illusive man said:
You really care for freedom right?

Yaeh, that’s what real freedom fighters are all about, putting stamps on upside down. LOL

Davo said:
Fascism is purely a parent of Liberalism. It is the heavy-handed government the opposite of the small government founded by our framers and supported by Right Wing Conservatives. Socialists Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini showed the world the end result of the Leftist agenda, and it cannot be more un-American or anti-American. Liberals’ worst nightmare is true……………America was founded as a Right Wing Conspiracy. The Constitution was written for the sole purpose of protecting America from Liberalism…………………….that’s why the anti-American Left has worked diligently to circumvent and pervert the Constitution in order to “legitimize” the illegitimate. No need to shy away from the anti-Americanism of the LIberal mindset. Be proud of what you are. Just understand that there are those of us still in the majority in America that recognize that anti-American stance and will endeavor to marginalize those effects to this great nation.

Fascism is not the “parent” of liberalism. Fascism got its start by combining aspects of both left wing politics as well as right wing politics. When Mussolini came to power in the 1920s, fascism moved towards the right. Most educated people today regard fascism as being far right. In fact, fascists have strongly opposed liberal ideologies and socialist, Marxist ideologies.

Hitler was a socialist in name only. It is widely regarded that the nazi ideology was a form of fascism, which, as explained, is widely regarded as being a right wing ideology. In addition to other things, the nazis viewed the Jews as being liberal, and they therefore detested liberalism.

Socialists are not inherently evil or bad, as your pal glenn the insane beck claims. Yes, Stalin was a bad guy. The there are socialists in power today in countries such as Canada and the European countries. These countries are not bad or evil. I actually lived in “socialist” Europe for 4 years. I had absolutely no restrictions on my freedom and, in fact, possibly had more freedom than I do here. I had “socialized” medical care. There were no “death panels.” I didn’t have to wait in any lines to see a doctor. The government did not tell me what doctor I could go to. I know Europeans who experienced severe medical problems when I was working over there; they got right into hospitals and were cured.

This country has been founded on principles of liberalism….freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc.

The constitution was written for the “sole purpose of protection America from liberalism?” Oh, Jeez. Give me an effing break. Where do you get this crap from? It is oh so obvious that you are a limbaugh fan (“state-run” media, a term he often uses); it is oh so obvious that you love Sarah Palin (liberals are “anti-Americans”); it is oh so obvious that you love glenn the insane beck who claims he is a freedom loving constitution lover. Even if a sliver of what you say were true, your heroes, the Founding Fathers, had a hard time agreeing what went into the Constitution. There are different interpretations of the Constitution today. Why is your far right view the only correct way ot interpreting it? Why is there even a Supreme Court if your way is the only way?

It is also so obvious that you are a far right extremist who does not value academia. Your own words prove that there is a dumbing down of America. Why is it that far right extremists do not value education?

In spite of my criticizing conservatives and their views on NPR, there actually are a lot of conservatives who do listen to and like NPR. A poll has shown that 28% of its listeners are conservative (yes, I admit, this poll was an NPR poll). Last week, I saw that Tucker Carlson listens to NPR, although he doesn’t think it should be funded by government.

This article, just out today, before I sent my previous post, mentions this poll. It also talks about an NPR reporter who has been called conservative. I have seen other articles about this issue. I believe an analysis in 2005 indicated that there were considerably more guests from conservative think tanks than there were from liberal think tanks.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/20/what-s-killing-npr.html

But, you know, I’m tired of extreme righties like you who call names and refuse to listen to other points of view. I’m tired of dumb Americans who don’t value a good education, dumb Americans who don’t value academia. Go back to your love of Sarah Palin, glenn the insane, and rush the pig limbaugh. You’re hopeless.

By the way. I want to say something which, in your own words, proves that you do not know what you are talking about.

You say that “fascism is purely a parent of liberalism.” Fascism first arose in WWI (which started in 1914).

If the U.S. “Constitution was written for the sole purpose of protecting America from Liberalism,” then fascism cannot be the “parent of liberalism.” The Constitution was adopted in 1787, more than 125 years before the creation of and rise of fascism.

It is clear that you like using the talking points spewed by your far right, uneducated heroes like Palin, beck, limbaugh, and I forgot to mention Bachmann who also does not know her history and also is one who likes to talk about the anti-Americans in this country.

One thing that makes this country great is the variety of various ideas. You’re anti-American because you, like your far right pals in the media, do not tolerate people who think differently than you do.

Zermatt2 said:
Most educated people today regard fascism as being far right.

Nah. Those are only the ones “educated” (or more accurately, “indoctrinated”) by other anti-American Liberals.

Lemme help clear this up for you. Draw a horizontal line with a vertical one intersecting it at it’s center. Just to the Right we find limited government Conservatives, with Libertarians a bit further to the right. The extreme Right has anarchists as the ultimate SMALL government.

Now, let’s examine the Left of center who tout large government. Just to the left of the line resides modern Liberals/Socialists, with vCommunsists just a step further. To the extreme left we find the ultimate in big government…………tyrannical fascism.

Now, I know Liberals find the TRUTH and obstacle to your agenda. But the TRUTH has no agenda.

Zermatt2 said:
It is also so obvious that you are a far right extremist who does not value academia. Your own words prove that there is a dumbing down of America. Why is it that far right extremists do not value education?

Where you’re going wrong here, Zerm, is in equating academia with education. Ya see, education is objective gathering of information, and Conservatives value education greatly. Academia, however, is an isolated and subjective indoctrination of Liberals by other isolated and institutionalized Liberals. There’s NOTHING objective about “academia.”

Zermatt2 said:
This country has been founded on principles of liberalism….freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc.

Nope. The “classic” liberalism you describe IS the foundation of America. Classic liberalism is, in fact, Conservatism. At the end of WW II, Socialists hijacked the term “liberal” to deceive the public after Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini showed the world the end result of Socialism. “Modern” liberalism is the antithesis of the freedoms you mention. What modern Liberal supports freedom of speech while participating in violent demonstrations against any scheduled speaker opposing their agenda? What modern Liberal supports freedom of religion while prohibiting the mention of Jesus or participating in prayer on public property? And what modern Liberal doesn’t call for the silencing of questioners of global warming, or of Rush LImbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin?

Zermatt2 said:
But, you know, I’m tired of extreme righties like you who call names and refuse to listen to other points of view. I’m tired of dumb Americans who don’t value a good education, dumb Americans who don’t value academia.

I suspect that’s true, Zerm, I’d get tired too if I had to promote such failed logic as anti-American Liberalism. Truth and logic are both boring and threatening to Liberals. “Name-calling” is just that……….calling superficial names. What descriptive term do I use that you minimalize as “name-calling?”

There you go, again. Using that term “indoctrinated.,” an indication that you are a far right zealot.

Academia is very much related to education. Academia generally refers to those with higher education degrees. Academia often refers to those who do research. There are liberals and conservatives in academia.

Neither beck nor hannity nor limbaugh has a college degree. I don’t think any of them has attended more than just a few months of college, at best. While I agree that you do not need a college degree to succeed in life, it sure helps. I don’t know what Palin’s story is, but she bounced around 4 or 5 colleges in 4 or 5 years to get a degree. It is clear that people like this do not value academia; it is clear they do not hold an education in high esteem, regardless of whether or not you think it is different from academia. When Palin was doing her Alaska program, she was caught on video with Bristol talking to an Alaskan who had a sign that said “Palin: Worst Governor Ever.” Palin confronted her. She asked the woman what she did. She said that she was a teacher. Both Palins said, “Oh,” and it was obvious from the tone of their voices that they did not particularly care for teachers. Why didn’t Palin say, “that’s great! You’re someone who is educating our children?” There is a sense amongst conservatives that most teachers are “bad” and liberal.

I’ve heard limbaugh refer to those “eggheads” from Ivy League schools. beck has that revisionist “historian,” David Barton, as an educator at beck’s “university.” Most consider Barton to be a crackpot.

Many conservatives bash universities of being bastions of liberalism. I went to Washington University in St. Louis. It cannot be considered a “bastion of liberalism.” In fact, you could say it is a “bastion of conservatism.” Its former chancellor, Bill Danforth, is the brother of former Republican senator John Danforth. John Danforth once employed the likes of Clarence Thomas and John Ashcroft. The Danforths are not liberals. Every year, half of my tuition was paid for by a scholarship from the Olin Corporation. The Olin Corporation is a manufacturer of ammunition. It is no liberal organization. The former CEO of McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing, is a member of the board of trustees. Boeing is a government contract, making products for our defense.

There is indeed a theme of bashing higher education by many conservatives when they often make this claim about universities being bastions of liberalism. They despise universities because of this belief.

I strongly disagree on most issues that people like Bill O’Reilly, David Frum, and George Will support. In spite of this, and in spite of the fact that Bill O’Reilly sometimes is a bully, I generally respect him; I have watched his program often over the years; he has read a number of my emails on his program. One reason I respect him is that he is one conservative who does value a higher education degree….he himself went to Harvard. In spite of the fact that I usually disagree with people like David Frum and George Will, I respect them because they are not the yellers and screamers like limbaugh and hannity; I respect them because they have higher education degrees. At least I will listen to people like this; I will not listen to people like beck, limbaugh, and hannity who do not have higher education degrees and who are yellers and screamers and name callers. As mentioned, it is obvious you are followers of people like this because of the language you have used.

I will repeat: Acadamia is not “an isolated and subjective indoctrination.” It is the value of higher education and research, something we sorely need in this country if we are to regain our status in math and science, engineering, etc. We haven’t come as far as we have without academia, without research.

You ask certain questions about modern liberals, so in response, I ask, what “real American” wants to send all Muslims home? Where is the freedom of religion? What “real American” or “real conservative” wants to put in place measures to have a governor of a state appoint a person to take control of a town, village, or city and be able to unilaterally fire any public employee for essentially any reason (this is precisely what is being proposed in Michigan…..it is a move towards dictatorship).

You talk about “freedom of speech,” but “freedom of speech” refers to one’s right to speak without the government interfering; it does not refer to one’s right to protest someone speaking. While I disagree with “violent demonstrations,” it is not anti-American or against “freedom of speech,” as you claim. And, as another example, the Supreme Court just recently upheld the right of the Phelps Klan of the Westboro Baptist Church infamy to continue with their vile demonstrations outside the funerals of military people. The lone dissenter was Samuel Alito, one of the most conservative justices, who wanted to restrict the Phelps from what they are doing. While I actually agree with Alito on this one, how can any conservative actually agree with Alito, who wanted to restrict these demonstrations?

Modern liberals may strongly disagree with questioners of global warming; modern liberals may actually want to silence people like limbaugh, beck, and Palin; but they also know that this is not the Democratic way of doing things. Therefore, instead of calling for their silence, we strongly object to what these clowns say.

Liberals are not “anti-American.” They are not bored by “truth and logic” and in fact thrive on these things. They simply have different views on how to do things.

You in fact did call me a name: “Friggin’ delusional Lib”

Zermatt2 said:
You in fact did call me a name: “Friggin’ delusional Lib”

Nah. Just a descriptive term born out of observation and corroborated in your last post. Academia is controlled by Liberals who were taught by Liberals, who were taught by other Liberals………………none of which have had to survive outside the safety of the tenured and isolated institutions. Thank you for your compliments as I have multiple degrees, a fact that qualifies me to make the assessments I make concerning the subjective and limited capacity of academia.

Name-calling? I thought you were objecting to the term “anti-American Liberal” but I should have realized you people are likely proud of that description. Nevertheless, YOU have engaged in so much name-calling on this page alone as to make it impractical to try to count the times. But Liberals always seem to think you have monopolistic rights to nastiness, and should never be responded to in like kind.

Zermatt2 said:
Liberals are not “anti-American.” They are not bored by “truth and logic” and in fact thrive on these things.

Nope. Liberals are, in fact, anti-American. And truth and logic are obstacles to modern liberals who are motivated by emotions instead. Here, let’s take a look:

1. America was founded as the ‘land of the free’ and our Constitution established the nobility of the individual above the government or the masses. The government exists “at the consent of the governed,” unlike oppressive regimes that exist to the opposite. Liberals tirelessly work to reverse that value system, putting the government and the “greater good” (as they alone see it) above the individual rights to life, liberty, and ownership of property our American system guarantees.

2. In every instance where the question arises, Liberals never miss an opportunity to ‘blame America first,’ the very essence of being “anti-American.” Liberals never miss an opportunity to stand with America’s enemies against her, promoting the notion that those enemies are somehow “victims” of America. Treason as defined in the Constitution is “giving aid and comfort to our enemy,” and there can be no denying the guilt of the anti-American Liberals in constantly committing this crime.

For anyone interested, I’ve saved a list of quotes where it’s impossible to distinguish the Democrat politicians from Al Qaida leaders as to who made the quotes. Very “anti-American” to the core.

3. Avowed anti-Americans always gravitate to the Democrat Party for association. The Socialist Party, the Communist Party, Muslims, Marxists, and illegal immigrants find sanctuary with anti-American Democrats, as they all have the same agenda……………destroy America as it was founded and replace the American value system with a foreign style oppressive system. Democrats give aid and comfort to Muslims who work to advance the fascist Sharia law into the incompatible American system of individual liberty and human rights. And third world tyrannical dictators always are friendly with Democrats who support their efforts without hesitation.

The problem with most of you DIMS here, is that you prefer to work in the cover of darkness than to step up into the light and proudly wear your anti-Americanism like a badge. Go ahead, you’re not fooling anyone………….except maybe yourself if you consider the above list somehow “patriotic.” But I suspect most of you know who what you are…….you just don’t like discussing it openly.

Nah. As far as name calling is concerned, we do not think we have “monopolistic rights” to doing this. Honestly, a name here, a name there…..that does not really bother me. What bothers me is the following: many conservatives accuse liberals of only being able to call names when in fact they themselves call many names. Last year I once tried to have a civil conversation with conservatives on another web site. Instead of providing “facts,” as you conservatives claim you do and as you conservatives demand of liberals, all these people could do was call me names and make fun of me. They called me “stupid” and called me an “idiot.” They accused me of being only 12 years old, living in my parents’ basement, and eating Cheetos all day. They accused me of being drunk or on drugs.

The other thing that gets me is that this type of name calling is constant from many conservatives. I rarely listen to limbaugh, but during the 2008 presidential race, I listened to him more often than I do now. Almost every single time I turned his program on, he was calling Democrats and liberals “mindless.” We’re not mindless. And, again, a name here, a name there….who cares. But limbaugh was saying this very often.

Coulter has called Al Gore and Bill Clinton “fags.” Beck has called Obama a “racist with a deep seated hatred of white peoople,” in spite of the fact that Obama’s own mother and beloved grandmother were white. Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich make accusations that Obama was born in Kenya, and while this may not necessarily be “name-calling,” it is an attack on our President. Huckabee may claim that he simply “misspoke,” but he did not. He went into great detail about the Mau Mau revolution, which happened in Kenya; Huckabee had every intent of saying what he said.

I repeat, liberals do not seem to think they have a “monopolistic rights to nastiness” because we know that conservatives exercise these rights far more than liberals do. Glenn beck has “joked” about killing Michael Moore; beck has “joked” about poisoning Nancy Pelosi. Since when has it become acceptable in this country to joke about killing someone? And, while beck defends himself by saying that these type of things are jokes, why haven’t I seen his audience laugh at things like this?

It has been documented that beck has made the hitler/nazi comparisons about Obama hundreds of times. What kind of a decent human being makes such comparisons so many times? When I think of nazis, and when most decent people think of nazis, they think of the mass murder of 6 million Jews and others; they think of WWII and the deaths of 50 to 70 million people. They don’t think of socialism, which, once again, is not the ideology nazis practiced. They were the National Socialist party in name only. I’ve been to Dachau several times; I’ve been to Auschwitz once. It is a very sobering thing. Decent people do not make such comparisons so many times.

A couple of years ago, Neil Boortz made the comment that sending Obama to speak to Wall Street is akin to sending a child molester to speak to a kindergarten class. How nasty can one get? What kind of a monster makes such comparisons, even if he hates Obama?

limbaugh once made fun of Michael J. Fox’s Parkinsons’ disease. What kind of an evil person makes fun of someone’s serious, incurable disease?

limbaugh recently suggested that the children of poor people find food in garbage cans. limbaugh more recently suggested that poor people not be allowed to vote. Well, no, he didn’t advocate this; he just “suggested” it and brought up the topic. What a disgusting jerk.

No, liberals don’t have a monopoly on name calling and nastiness. But conservatives sure have the competition beat when it comes to name calling and nastiness. They have the advantage not only because of the sheer number of times that they use this nastiness; they have the advantage because of their high profile “leaders” who use such nastiness. The fact that, yes, there were protesters who called G.W. Bush a nazi does not equate at all to someone like beck who has a national cable and radio program with millions of viewers and listeners and has called Obama a nazi hundreds of times.

You’re just wrong about liberals being “anti-American.” Yes, America has done many a great thing in our history, but what is wrong with criticizing some of the bad things and wanting to make this country better? Once again, you are using talking points from people like beck, limbaugh, palin, and hannity……you accuse liberals of “blaming America first.” Just because this country has done great things, does that mean we cannot criticize things we see wrong with it? Just because we have done great things, does that justify doing bad things? You are so full of nonsense when you claim that liberals promote the notion that our enemies are “victims.” BS. Yes, Saddam Hussein was an enemy of this country, but that was no reason to go to war in that country. Why haven’t we invaded North Korea? I’ll relay a story which I think I’ve posted here before. When Bush went into Afghanistan, I was at my brother’s house. We both shouted “get them bastards” and did high-fives. If we are “anti-Americans,” why did we feel that way?

And, speaking of “victims,” it sure seems to me that many conservatives like Palin play the victim card. They are not living up to their conservative ideals. She never takes responsibility for her own actions and words.

People like you take your conservatism way too far. We don’t want a dictator in the White House; we don’t want the government interfering in every aspect of our lives, unlike many conservatives who want the government to control our sex lives. In the case of those Republicans in Michigan, they want the ability to impose a dictatorship on various towns they see fit, against the will of the people.

Most people in Wisconsin do not want collective bargaining rights to go away, even if those people are non-union. Yet Republicans in that state imposed fascist tactics in order to try to take away those rights.

As for your quotes, I should have saved a quote I saw the other day. Hitler and Stalin hated unions, just like conservatives do.

You are totally ridiculous about your “anti-American” comments. How are all Muslims “anti-American?” I once hired and worked with a number of Muslims in Europe. They were very supportive of America, including one particular Muslim I hired who along with his wife and 2 kids lives in America. You talk about those “violent demonstrations” anti-American liberals participate in; those “anti-American” conservatives do the same thing. Last month, a Muslim group in Orange County, CA, held a fund raiser for the poor and women. A large group of conservative hate mongers violently protested this group outside the fund raiser. I’ve seen video where Muslim women were shielding their children’s ears because they did not want their children to hear the violent hate speech coming from these protesters. One of the people who organized this protest was Islamaphobe extraordinaire Pam Gellar.

You and your stupid Sharia law statements…..if there is anyone who is working to advance Sharia Law, Democrat or otherwise, their numbers are very, very small. Sharia Law is wrong; it is heinous; it should not be practiced anywhere, including here. You make such ridiculous statements.

And, I will repeat that your comments about fascism being the parent of liberalism, regardless of which brand of liberalism you are talking about, is wrong. Fascism is widely regarded as a right-wing ideology. Fascism involves dictators who take over complete control of corporations. The most progressive of liberals complain loudly about the government bailouts of Wall Street and GM. And as far as liberalism being associated with the left, that association goes back to the late 1800s, many years before fascism took root.

Davo said:
Nah. Just a descriptive term born out of observation and corroborated in your last post. Academia is controlled by Liberals who were taught by Liberals, who were taught by other Liberals………………none of which have had to survive outside the safety of the tenured and isolated institutions. Thank you for your compliments as I have multiple degrees, a fact that qualifies me to make the assessments I make concerning the subjective and limited capacity of academia. Name-calling? I thought you were objecting to the term “anti-American Liberal” but I should have realized you people are likely proud of that description. Nevertheless, YOU have engaged in so much name-calling on this page alone as to make it impractical to try to count the times. But Liberals always seem to think you have monopolistic rights to nastiness, and should never be responded to in like kind. Nope. Liberals are, in fact, anti-American. And truth and logic are obstacles to modern liberals who are motivated by emotions instead. Here, let’s take a look: 1. America was founded as the ‘land of the free’ and our Constitution established the nobility of the individual above the government or the masses. The government exists “at the consent of the governed,” unlike oppressive regimes that exist to the opposite. Liberals tirelessly work to reverse that value system, putting the government and the “greater good” (as they alone see it) above the individual rights to life, liberty, and ownership of property our American system guarantees. 2. In every instance where the question arises, Liberals never miss an opportunity to ‘blame America first,’ the very essence of being “anti-American.” Liberals never miss an opportunity to stand with America’s enemies against her, promoting the notion that those enemies are somehow “victims” of America. Treason as defined in the Constitution is “giving aid and comfort to our enemy,” and there can be no denying the guilt of the anti-American Liberals in constantly committing this crime. For anyone interested, I’ve saved a list of quotes where it’s impossible to distinguish the Democrat politicians from Al Qaida leaders as to who made the quotes. Very “anti-American” to the core. 3. Avowed anti-Americans always gravitate to the Democrat Party for association. The Socialist Party, the Communist Party, Muslims, Marxists, and illegal immigrants find sanctuary with anti-American Democrats, as they all have the same agenda……………destroy America as it was founded and replace the American value system with a foreign style oppressive system. Democrats give aid and comfort to Muslims who work to advance the fascist Sharia law into the incompatible American system of individual liberty and human rights. And third world tyrannical dictators always are friendly with Democrats who support their efforts without hesitation. The problem with most of you DIMS here, is that you prefer to work in the cover of darkness than to step up into the light and proudly wear your anti-Americanism like a badge. Go ahead, you’re not fooling anyone………….except maybe yourself if you consider the above list somehow “patriotic.” But I suspect most of you know who what you are…….you just don’t like discussing it openly.

One other thing….you say that “anti-Americans” like Muslims, The Socialist Party, the Communist Party, Muslims, Marxists, and illegal immigrants find sanctuary” with the Democratic party. (And, yes, it is the “Democratic” party, not “Democrat” party, like limbaugh and his followers like to say……the word “Democrat” is a noun; the word “Democratic” is an adjective which should be used when talking about the party or Democratic bills, etc. The word “Republican” is a noun or an adjective, depending upon its usage.)

But getting back to these “anti-Americans” gravitating towards the Democratic party. It is a known fact that extreme right hate groups gravitate towards the Republican party, especially the Tea Party branch. This includes racists; it includes militia groups who want to completely get rid of government of any kind. This is only natural because Republicans/Tea Partiers want limited government; they are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment and even go so far as Sharon Angle did to make statements about using “2nd Amendment remedies”; and Republicans/Tea Partiers hate illegal immigrants, something racists also hate.

Wow, Zerm, you sure can waste a lot of bandwidth saying NOTHING. Obviously, you categorize all Conservative discourse as “name-calling.” How convenient. I was actually referring to…………..well, you know…………….name-calling. I can’t blame you, though, for wanting to silence your opposition…………that’s the Liberal way, right?

Zermatt2 said:
It is a known fact that extreme right hate groups gravitate towards the Republican party, especially the Tea Party branch.

No. It’s a PRESUMPTION by Liberals terrified of the truth. Cummon, the Tea Party? Even those who do your thinking for you have given up on trying to show examples of hate, violence, or racism they desperately accused the Tea Party of. Now, union protesters………..that’s another story altogether. Your “thinkers” can tell you to say the people of Wisconsin are behind the unions but that doesn’t make it so. The people just elected their governor who promised to do exactly as he did, even in the face of cowardly and illegal Democrat Senators bent on subverting the will of the people. Lies about collective bargaining flow from the mouths of the anti-Americans desperate to deceive any suckers who will listen. You seem to volunteer without question.

You know what, D? You do the exact same things you accuse liberals of doing.

I have not categorized “all” conservative discourse as “name-calling.” I said many do; I cited specific examples of high profile conservatives who name call and use extreme nastiness. I previously cited examples of conservatives whom I respect (George Will, David Frum), and one reason I respect them is because they do not scream and shout; they do not use the nasty language that limbaugh and hannity use; they do not call names like those I mentioned do. Can you not read?

A very common meme by conservatives is that liberals are afraid of the truth. This is not true.

When I said what I said about the racists and haters gravitating towards the Tea Party, I did not accuse the Tea Party of being such. I absolutely did not. I did just as you did when you said that your so-called “anti-American” groups gravitate towards the Democratic party. Again, do you not read?

You would be totally lost were it not for your “thinkers” like limbaugh, hannity, and beck.

Yes, the people did just elect their governor in Wisconsin. He did not campaign on a promise to bust the unions. He absolutely did not. And that’s why even some non-union people disagree with him; that’s why his poll numbers have dropped dramatically in a very short period of time. If an election were held today, polls show that he would lose against his opponent last November.

Those are not lies about collective bargaining.

I have to ask if you are a big fan of people such as I mentioned. A lot of your language comes straight out of the mouths of people like bachmann, beck, limbaugh, and hannity. Did you know that these people have lied? You say you only speak the truth, but why, then, did these people spread the lie that Obama spent $200M a day on his trip to Asia last year? This was categorically false. It was a lie.

If you are such a fan of the “founding fathers,” why is your hero bachmann, also one who is a huge fan of the “founding fathers” and one who says she follow the Constitution. If she is such a fan of the founding fathers, why is she ignorant of the founding father’s history? She claimed that the founding fathers fought tirelessly to eliminate slavery. That is not true. If true, why did they not outlaw slavery in the Constitution? If true, why did it take nearly 80 years plus to outlaw slavery, after the Constitution? At best, the founding fathers did not outlaw slavery in the constitution because they hoped it would just go away and people would reject it over time.

Bachmann also had her facts wrong about Lexington and Concord a week or so ago. Sure, she could have made a mistake, but I think not. If it were a mistake, she made it twice in the same weekend. If it were a mistake, and if she is such a supporter of the Constitution and the founding fathers, why did she not catch this mistake in a speech prepared by her staff? She is ignorant and a hypocrite if she rallies behind the Constitution and the founding fathers but doesn’t know important facts about them.

And, getting back to your claim that liberals are anti-American if they support violent protests and demonstrations at events they disagree with: you seem to forget that this country was started by violent protests and demonstrations. This country was founded by war. So why is it “anti-American” if anyone protests events they disagree with?

mibwilso said:
Yep. It’s called taxes….we pay them so that we can have things like roads, police, fire, etc. You wingnuts love to attack the government and taxes, all the while remaining ignorant about all of the things that the government does that affects your everyday life. The government does have some inefficiencies….but that’s better than the alternative. Ask the folks in Afghanistan how “limited government” is working out for them. Having a government is what distinguishes us from a tribal society.

You don’t see the difference between using taxes for the common good (roads, police, fire) and using taxes to redistribute income? What color is the sky in your world?

mibwilso said:
Any rational government realizes that you have to make it easy enough to do business for jobs to be created….the US has one of the lowest tax burdens in the industrialized world, despite all of the constant bitching by the wingnuts. Asking those who benefit the most from our system of government (the wealthy) to pay Clinton-era tax rates is not unreasonable.

Asking the government to live within their income is even less unreasonable.

mibwilso said:
Such wingnut whining. It’s not “taken” from you. Regardless of how you may feel, you pay it as a condition of choosing to live here….as you would pay taxes anywhere else with a civilized society. The entitlement mentality of conservatives is truly laughable. Conservatives think they’re entitled to a well-functioning economy, a system of law and order, and vibrant freedoms….but don’t think they should ever have to pay for anything.

I know, you must really hate those people who want to make their own decisions on how their money is spent and which charities they suppor. And yes, the money is taken, the temporary payroll withholding method of paying taxes that was put in as a temporary measure during WWII is still with us. Didn’t you know that? I would much rather that taxes should be paid once a year, the day before election day.

mibwilso said:
Asking wealthy people to pay Clinton-era tax rates does not turn us into France…or some Socialist government. Even if we raised taxes back to those rates, we would STILL have some of the lowest taxes of any developed country.

Why do you so object to the government living within its means?

Zermatt2 said:
If true, why did they not outlaw slavery in the Constitution? If true, why did it take nearly 80 years plus to outlaw slavery, after the Constitution? At best, the founding fathers did not outlaw slavery in the constitution because they hoped it would just go away and people would reject it over time.

Zermatt, i do wish you’d do something about that boring case of keyboard diarrhea you clearly have. Make your point, man. I really don’t care to wade through a myriad of type that could have been stated in two sentences.

It might help you to be concise if you didn’t feel the need to create strawman arguments. Your clairvoyance isn’t quite good enough to know who my “heros” are. But FYI, the founders originally intended to recognize our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the ownership of property. The “ownership of property” was dropped and replaced by the subjective nonsense, “the pursuit of happiness” for the sole reason of NOT providing slave owners with any idea that slavery was being condoned Constitutionally.

Our founders knew and accepted that slavery was wrong. But they also knew Rome wasn’t built in a day. They knew that creating a nation was tough enough for the time being, but laid the groundwork for the abolition of slavery that followed. Considering the dramatic changes brought about by the Civil War, it’s clear they were exactly right in their decision.

Zermatt2 said:
This country was founded by war. So why is it “anti-American” if anyone protests events they disagree with?

This country was NOT “founded by war.” It was founded by the realization that “all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights………………….” War was the only path to the freedom they recognized as the best solution to human problems. And I never claimed it anti-American to protest. That you must dilute my observations to make Liberalism appear less un-American should give you pause.

D, D, D, D, D. You just don’t get it. You will never learn.

You, like other conservatives, demand facts. I provided facts in my responses. Another fact: if the founders knew slavery was wrong, why did some of them own many slaves? They did not work “tirelessly” to abolish slavery, as Michelle Bachmann has claimed. Of course they knew Rome wasn’t built in a day, but if they were serious about abolishing slavery, they would have freed their slaves immediately and never would have owned slaves to begin with.

You bash me for calling names, yet conservatives call names very often. And I explained the hypocrisy exhibited by many conservatives who claim all liberals can do is call names. You bash me by claiming that you were actually referring to “actual name calling.” Yet it was you who brought up the topic of nastiness, so I provided facts; I provided actual examples of nastiness that some on the right use. “Nastiness” is more than just name calling.

You demand truth and claim that only conservatives speak the truth and liberals are afraid of it, yet many conservative heroes do not speak the truth….and I gave specific examples of how some of these on the right have lied.

This country may not have been “founded by war,” but this is a question of semantics. War is what led to this country being formed.

You say you never claimed it anti-American to protest. Perhaps you did not do so directly, but you did say this: “What modern Liberal supports freedom of speech while participating in violent demonstrations against any scheduled speaker opposing their agenda?” You have made it very clear that “modern liberals” are anti-American, and you support that by claiming that liberals do not support freedom of speech when they participate in such protests.

I have had a number of these extended arguments with conservatives, and invariably, one or more of several things happen. One, they descend into name-calling. Fortunately, you did not do much of this, although I did give you an example of how this happened to me before.

Two, they start claiming that only conservatives speak the truth. This is flat out nonsense, and I gave you examples of how conservatives have lied.

Three, they ignore what I have to say, even though I have provided facts, as you demand. They make claims that I am saying “NOTHING,” as you have done.

I may not know who your heroes are, but I can assure you that some of the language you use is directly from the mouths of the likes of Michelle Bachmann, rush limbaugh, sean hannity, glenn beck, and sarah palin.

So have a nice day. I’m sure I will run into you again on another thread.

By the way, I do like your icon. I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood. I just wish you were more moderate, more decent, and more reasonable as Clint appears to be in real life.

Zermatt2 says-’(state-run” sounds as if you are calling NPR a “commie” network…..something I refuse to admit, and it shows your extremism here).’

Isn’t that a bit of a stretch there, pal? Calling me extreme because you THINK (keyword) it sounds I am equatting the words “state-run media” to “commie network”? I am simply stating a FACT. NPR & PBS are funded with government/ state money, therefore their business operation currently runs by the grace of state tax dollars, therefore they are a state-run media outfit. I can make this statement more PC if that’s what you prefer. How’s this statement? “NPR is semi-subsidized with the generosity of United State excess benefit”.

Hopefully, this helps so you no longer have to extrapolate you’re inaccurate thoughts into generalized stereotypes.

Zermatt2 said:
Three, they ignore what I have to say, even though I have provided facts, as you demand. They make claims that I am saying “NOTHING,” as you have done.

Sorry, Zerm, you’ve provided nothing factual. All you’ve done is ramble in repetition of some Leftist blogsite talking points not related to reality. You state a list of my “heros,” then say you don’t know who my hero’s are. You accuse me of name-calling then say I haven’t called you names. Then you said I believed protests to be un-American; then you said I didn’t. You claim to hate Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck but seem to have memorized everything they say. Which is it?

Frankly, I think you’r just a confused guy desperately trying to hang on to a Liberal philosophy that’s crumbling before your eyes. Don’t accept my views, but consider them. And don’t allow others to do your thinking for you either……………it should be clear to you by now that that’s a road to nowhere.

Truth and logic are not scary. Nor do they need to be told to you by others. Truth and logic will always present themselves to you if you seek them in sincerity. Otherwise, you’re doomed to cheap partisanship that diminishes your effectiveness as a citizen, and become a mind-numbed Dim.

If you must be a Liberal, be an honest one and proudly be anti-American………….not just a sucker repeating what you’ve been told to repeat.

Davo said:
Sorry, Zerm, you’ve provided nothing factual. All you’ve done is ramble in repetition of some Leftist blogsite talking points not related to reality. You state a list of my “heros,” then say you don’t know who my hero’s are. You accuse me of name-calling then say I haven’t called you names. Then you said I believed protests to be un-American; then you said I didn’t. You claim to hate Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck but seem to have memorized everything they say. Which is it? Frankly, I think you’r just a confused guy desperately trying to hang on to a Liberal philosophy that’s crumbling before your eyes. Don’t accept my views, but consider them. And don’t allow others to do your thinking for you either……………it should be clear to you by now that that’s a road to nowhere. Truth and logic are not scary. Nor do they need to be told to you by others. Truth and logic will always present themselves to you if you seek them in sincerity. Otherwise, you’re doomed to cheap partisanship that diminishes your effectiveness as a citizen, and become a mind-numbed Dim. If you must be a Liberal, be an honest one and proudly be anti-American………….not just a sucker repeating what you’ve been told to repeat.

I must respond, D.

I have provided many facts. And you apparently do not know that I have provided facts because you have said that I have “keyboard diarrhea” and that you don’t care to wade through my lengthy replies. So I take it you have not read my facts, or you simply choose to ignore them. Frankly, if you ask me once again to provide facts, you will say that my response is keyboard diarrhea; it is too long; and you don’t want to wade through them. So, which is it? Do you want facts, or do you not want me to provide facts, which I have done?

When I say I don’t know who your heroes are, I am admitting that I initially made a mistake in claiming to do so. This is one characteristic of conservatives….they cannot admit mistakes; they cannot say they are sorry.

I did not say you did not call me any names. I said that fortunately, you “did not do much of this.” This sentence means that you did some name calling, albeit not very much.

I clarified my statements about anti-Americans. After your clarification that you did not say protests were un-American, I accept that. However, you really imply that what you call violent protests/demonstrations are anti-American. You really do.

Yes, I cannot stand limbaugh, palin, or beck. But that doesn’t mean I don’t listen to them. And, I have not “memorized everything they say.” You lie. I have personally seen many things they have said. When beck first started his program at Fox, I literally watched his entire program for almost 2 weeks straight. I saw beck featuring footage of nazis marching through the streets, all the while beck talked about Obama. He was implying Obama and his administration are nazis.

I am not confused. I am not desperate. You are the one who is desperate when you make such stupid arguments.

I have considered your views. I disagree with many of them, in particular because they seem very extreme. I don’t allow others to do my thinking. I am a big fan of Bill Maher, but I strongly disagree with some of his views. I disagree with his views about vaccines and prescription medications. I disagree with his comments he made a week ago to Keith Ellison about Muslims.

Having said that I disagree with many conservative points of view, I will say that while I support unions, I do think they can sacrifice a bit to help out with the economy…..and, in fact, the public unions in Wisconsin did agree to the benefit cuts republicans wanted. They protested against the taking away of collective bargaining.

Having said what I’ve said, I will also say that I believe in the conservative mantra of personal responsibility, but I think conservatives like you take it too far.

Having said what I said, I am very concerned about the federal deficit. Something needs to be done about it, but what started this whole conversation was a discussion about cutting funds to NPR. This won’t make a dent in the federal deficit.

So, yes, I agree with some of the things conservatives like you push. I just disagree in the extent to which you want to do these things, and I disagree with how you want to do some of these things.

I am not afraid of truth and logic. I have used truth and logic in my arguments, but apparently you are afraid of the truth.

I am very honest about how I feel. I am not a sucker repeating things I have heard; I certainly have not been “told to repeat” things by anyone. This is serious lying on your part. Absolutely no one has forced me to repeat anything. People like you and bachmann who refer to those with “anti-American” views are purely partisan hacks.

One reason why my responses have been so long is because I realize that mind-numbed dimwits can’t fathom the arguments I make, so I have provided facts and examples which you choose to ignore.

Honestly, D. Your latest response is pitiful. I look at very few leftist blogsites; there is only 1 I regularly look at every other day or so, and it isn’t the Daily KOS, nor is it Media Matters. You completely have twisted what I said. Your arguments in your first paragraph are utterly and completely absurd and ridiculous.

nrgetick said:
First of all I disagree with Ira…

Well, there you go.

Zermatt2 said:
Walls of text – holy crap!

Bias knows no volume.

Zermatt2 said:
Dude! With all of the Republican and conservative nonsense out there, I sure could use a good smoke, but I don’t smoke, regular or otherwise. Good question, though, if asked of repubs and conservatives!

OK, fair response deserves respect. I have listened for YEARS to NPR–Dianne Rheem, Kokie Roberts, “Everything Considered,” Juan Williams, and all the rest. I have YET to hear anything resembling balance; NPR has been a liberal bastion since I first listened to it. From my perspective, one would have to be in denial to claim otherwise.

Since you don’t smoke, maybe I should have asked what have you been snorting.

X-3 said:
Since you don’t smoke, maybe I should have asked what have you been snorting.

Hey, dude. I appreciate your responses. Let’s party!

Unfortunately, maybe we can’t party because I don’t snort, either. I also don’t ingest illegal substances. Maybe we can party with some alcohol, but I don’t drink that stuff very often at all. I certainly wasn’t drinking when I made these postings the past few days!

The programs I listen to most on NPR include the news programs, especially the ones on the hour every hour. I wake up in the morning with my alarm clock set to NPR, and that’s what I hear….the national, international, and local news. I really do not hear any liberal slant in these news programs.

I try to listen to the news on the hour very often.

I do listen to Dianne Rheem’s program, and I do hear balance. She does sometimes have guests who are on both sides of the aisles. I don’t think I have heard Cokie Roberts’ program, but I have seen her some times on TV. Maybe I don’t watch her that much, but to some extent, she seems a little right of center, from what I have seen. Perhaps I am wrong.

I always thought Juan Williams was pretty moderate on NPR, although I didn’t hear him that often. When he’s gone on Bill O’Reilly’s program (and I have watched BOR very often for the past 10 years), he sometimes seems balanced and in fact sometimes argues against BOR, but I do have to admit that I don’t think it was right for him to express his fear of Muslims he sees on planes. I guess I don’t blame him for feeling that way; it’s sometimes hard to control what you actually feel; but to openly express those feelings on BOR’s program is something I don’t think he should have done. Should he have been fired for saying this, though? Probably not.

I also often listen to “Car Talk” on Saturday mornings. Maybe these guys are liberal, but to me, they just seem like a couple of guys having fun with their listeners and providing good, sound advice to help them with automobile problems. And, I sometimes listen to the “On your Health with Zorba Paster” program on Sundays. Like “Car Talk,” I think Zorba Paster is just a guy having fun but also providing valuable health tips to his listeners. Perhaps he is a liberal.

I listen to other programs, but not as often as I do to the ones I mention above. These other programs have included “Science Friday” and “All things Considered.” I do think these are fairly balanced in their programming, but maybe I’m wrong.

DCD..the last time I did payroll for our business we paid 6.2 % and the employees also paid 6.2.% and since we are self employed we pay 12.4 %…got it !

Zermatt2 said:
I listen to other programs, but not as often as I do to the ones I mention above. These other programs have included “Science Friday” and “All things Considered.” I do think these are fairly balanced in their programming, but maybe I’m wrong.

No coke, no weed, no glue, not much booze…DAMN, are you SURE you’re a liberal?

Awright, all kidding aside, you mentioned “Car Talk,” I really do like the program and the humor, but as for the NPR agenda, I think it’s sometimes not obviously liberal to liberals. Maybe the answer lies in what the don’t say, and our conversation–for which I’m grateful–is like one’s opinion on what is a beautiful woman: beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Have a REALLY nice day…seriously.

Feeling is mutual, X-3. I appreciate it when someone can argue their point without calling names or getting nasty. It’s also nice when they can joke about it.

One measure I look at to make a determination of whether or not a media outlet or a program is biased, and to what level it is biased, is not just what they say but how they say it (the tone of their message). I bet if I had a constant blood pressure monitor on me while watching certain programs on Fox as well as MSNBC, I would see many spikes in that blood pressure. To some extent, I’d see that on CNN with certain of their commentators like Eric Ericksson, and with the recent trend of CNN to try to be like Fox.

I simply just do not get upset or stressed when listening to NPR, even if I hear someone saying things I disagree with. People on NPR usually express their points of view calmly and without yelling, screaming, and sensationalism. No, this in and of itself is not a reason to publicly fund NPR, but I think it adds to arguments to publicly fund it; I think it adds to the argument that NPR is not nearly as biased as its opponents make it out to be. I tend to believe that perhaps the management may be heavily biased, but individuals on NPR programs do not express that bias, especially the “hard news” reporters.

There’s too much yelling, screaming, and name-calling in this country from both sides. Yes, I am guilty of doing as much, although I try hard not to. But it is also hard not to do so when others call you names or make vile remarks about people you associate with (like liberals). I always say that people like me cannot stand people like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity not because we very strongly disagree with their far right conservative views; we cannot stand them because of the manner in which they express those views and the way in which they viciously attack those with whom they disagree. That’s why I respect people like George Will and David Frum, even though I disagree with much of what they say.

I just hope NPR and PBS are not hurt if public funding goes away.

Have a good one!

WaterLoo said:
Zermatt2 says-’(state-run” sounds as if you are calling NPR a “commie” network…..something I refuse to admit, and it shows your extremism here).’ Isn’t that a bit of a stretch there, pal? Calling me extreme because you THINK (keyword) it sounds I am equatting the words “state-run media” to “commie network”? I am simply stating a FACT. NPR & PBS are funded with government/ state money, therefore their business operation currently runs by the grace of state tax dollars, therefore they are a state-run media outfit. I can make this statement more PC if that’s what you prefer. How’s this statement? “NPR is semi-subsidized with the generosity of United State excess benefit”. Hopefully, this helps so you no longer have to extrapolate you’re inaccurate thoughts into generalized stereotypes.

Well, Waterloo. While I cannot stand limbaugh, I do have to admit he does know what he is doing. He knows that saying “state-run” implies a communistic society, yet he can say he is not calling NPR a communist run network because of what you just said. You are a good student of limbaugh. I guess I’m also assuming, now, that you are a fan of limbaugh.

Whether or not you took your “state-run” language from limbaugh, I have to point out some things. First, only a small amount of NPR’s funding actually comes from the government. Therefore, I still find it hard to agree with the statement that NPR is “state-run,” even with you clairfying what you meant.

Second, I hear people like glenn beck and rush limbaugh refer to NPR as a communist network. I guess I actually see/hear this statement coming more from blogs like this, but that statement is very often made.

Lastly, I often hear limbaugh and others call CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and others in the mainstream media the “state-run” media. I’ve also heard limbaugh refer to such stations as “Pravda.” These media outlets do not get any funding from the government.

So, yes, I consider people like limbaugh, beck, hannity, and palin to be “extremists.” I do not hear more moderate conservatives like George Will or David Frum use such language as “state-run” media.

Does that mean you are an extremist when make such statements? No….I don’t know you. However, I do not think it stretches the truth very much when I say that people who call NPR “state-run” media want to imply it is a communist-run network.