NPR executive outFollow

God, I didn't even have to try for that one.

How the hell did this end out about oil companies? Joph pulled another one of his "Sure, NPR gets federal money and uses it to further a liberal political agenda, but oil companies get subsidies!!!". Really? WTF do those have to do with each other?

The issue isn't about the existence of subsidies or government funding, but what the purpose of those things are and whether that purpose is reasonable. Oil companies receive oil subsidies to produce oil. NPR gets funding from the government produce content.

When only conservatives get to buy cheaper gas because of this, you can make an analogy. A poor one, but you'd at least be in the ballpark. It's unclear the last time that millions of people listened to a guy from an oil company tell them what to think about current political events. Has that ever happened? Then let's not put these into the same category.

The reason the NPR thing is relevant is because NPR has a significant ability to influence how people view the world around them. The product they generate *is* information and ideas. It's much more relevant to worry about what ideas and what information they're involved in.

And frankly, the very concept of public radio and public TV is absurd today. When there were only a handful of networks it was still a dumb idea, but today it's dumb and completely irrelevant.

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 1:38pm by gbaji

Yeah. I get that. But you just had to jump in with your "OMG! Oil companies get billions and billions of dollars in subsidies!!!" bit.

I get that Varus' mind wanders off into bizarre corners of an issue, but what's your excuse? Can we at least agree that subsidies for oil companies to produce oil is wholly different than funding for NPR to produce broadcast content? Can we agree that the danger of government influencing the perception of its own actions is greater in one than in the other?

Obviously not since you're still jizzing all over yourself in a frantic attempt to scream and cry about me mocking him.

Look, I understand that you have few little conservative buddies on this forum and despite your constant "Gee, as much as it hurts me to agree with Varus, I agree with him 100% on everything" lines, you feel a deep need to defend him but embarrassing yourself by throwing a hissy fit each time I jack him around isn't the way to promote your common sense.

I never connected oil subsidies to NPR (I compared them to his stance on welfare) but nice job trying to build a strawman out of your own hysteria.

Oh freaking BS! The statement Varus made which you jumped on was that companies which receive government funding should not involve themselves in politics. That was a clear reference to NPR. You responded to that by arguing that we should start by cutting off funding for oil companies (cause apparently they involve themselves in political speech so much). The whole welfare thing was a side issue at best and you know it.


You were pretty clearly arguing that if NPR should have its funding cut off for engaging in political speech, then so should the oil companies. It's not hard to follow the 5-6 posts in which you traveled step by step from one to the other. The comments about welfare were not even relevant.

You ran with it quite a ways though and for many more posts than you ever spent "laughing" about Varus' welfare comment. And that thread of conversation about oil companies had *nothing* to do with welfare and everything to do with Varus' statement about companies receiving government funding not involving themselves in politics. It's just strange that you'd downplay your own position.

I suppose if the bulk of my arguments hinged on claiming I was just joking after the fact, I might also attempt to deflect notice of this whenever possible.


So... We all agree that NPR should not get any more government funding, right?

Wait...gbaji, are you saying that oil companies *don't* engage in political activism while collecting subsidies?

Protip: Debalic =/= Jophiel

I guess it would be up to you to prove that their broadcast was politically biased.

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 9:38pm by Jophiel

Well shucks! If only there were some evidence showing an NPR executive expressing extreme political bias, this might just help us make a determination. Too bad there isn't such a thing. Oh wait! This entire thread started because of exactly that! It's like we've come full circle or something. It's a miracle!!! ;)

Really? You don't think that maybe the evidence should be in what is actually broadcast?

Huh.

I'll never understand this. Oil is a finite commodity. Why would you want to burn through everything you have, when you could exhaust everyone else's resources and then hold all that remains?