Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk

Political Talk Political Talk Forum - Discuss and debate politics


Thanks Tree8Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 4th, 2018, 05:54 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 155
Public Trough Politics

June 4, 2018
PBS Crowns a New Conservative Hero with a New Show
By Colin Flaherty

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._new_show.html
Flaherty’s article lacks one thing. He does not go to the root of the problem:

In the eighteen years I posted on message boards, I called for repealing the XVI and XVII Amendments. I posted hundreds and hundreds of messages calling for withdrawing from the United Nations. I preached about abolishing bureaucracies like the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission.

NOTE: The National Endowment for the Arts was then-First Lady Jackie Kennedy’s pet project. Instead of sending flowers, LBJ sent Jackie a bureaucracy. After all, who could deny the widow Kennedy anything in 1965.

I never stopped pleading to end funding the PBS and NPR. Abolishing tax dollar’s funding the CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) has been in the pipeline for decades, yet the CPB (PBS & NPR) get the money every year.

Republicans refusing to put an end to tax dollar funding for public broadcasting when they have the opportunity is one of the biggest acts of political cowardliness the Republican Party is guilty of. Not driving liberal parasites away from the public trough is only one of many things Republicans fail to do whenever they have the White House and Congress. Their failure is the most puzzling to me. Aside from the fact that no American should be forced to fund a political agenda not their own, PBS opposes everything Republicans supposedly represent. Yet Republicans do not stop a travesty that is tax dollar funding for Public Television.

Parenthetically, talking heads care not a whit if the public is wise to newspeak, see fake news for what is, and is not fooled by liberal bias. Television’s mandate is to keep the public thinking within media parameters.

Public Television is Socialism’s media . There is no better reason for defunding the CPB than garbage like Ken Burns’ documentary The Vietnam War that was shown on PBS. I did not watch it for one second because I knew what it would say.

Those young Americans who did watch it please take a few minutes to read this article by Major General Brady:


'Beyond shameful': Don't fall for this deceitful Vietnam flick
Posted By Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady On 11/01/2017 @ 7:24 pm

?Beyond shameful?: Don?t fall for this deceitful Vietnam flick
In 1967, LBJ signed The Public Broadcasting Act giving Socialists/Communists a tax dollar pulpit for their propaganda. Brainwashing had long been implemented in public education, in Hollywood movies, and in commercial television, but direct tax dollar funding promoting Socialism in the all-powerful communications medium became a reality with the new law.

My opposition to, and knowledge of, tax-dollar funded media of any kind goes back to its beginning during LBJ’s administration. Had LBJ, and his fair-haired boy Bill Moyers, who became a multimillionaire on Public Television, been honest they would have funded a newspaper like Pravda as an adjunct to its electronic propaganda platforms. The Cold War was the only thing that held them back.

Bill Moyers pioneered the charity patronage field before the CPB was created. He served as the Peace Corps’ associate director of public affairs in 1961; then as deputy director from 1962 to 1963. Living in Third World mud huts was not for our Bill. He went from the Peace Corps to working for his longtime patron, LBJ, as special assistant from 1963 to 1967; doubling as press secretary from 1965 to 1967.

I will wager that when young Bill hooked up with the Peace Corps he said he “wanted to give something back.” I cannot say how successful he was at giving anything back. To Peace Corps graduates like Bill Moyers peace truly meant piece —— as in a piece of the public purse. Thanks in large part to Public Television Moyers became a multimillionaire.

If I remember correctly PBS is a family business. His son did well, too. In addition to Moyers & Son a shithouse full of PBS steadies became multimillionaires off of Public Television.

Looking back at Peace Corps predictions in today’s world according to U.N. charity hustlers poverty is increasing, illiteracy is rampant as is disease, hunger, and brutality. So the world can hardly be called peaceful.

Question: Exactly what the hell did Peace Corps volunteers accomplish other than document their own touchy-feely credentials in order to enhance their résumés?

By the way, when a Muslim soldier, or a Chicom, comes to kill you do not send for the Marines, send for the Peace Corps.

Throughout the years after the CPB was up and running Moyers bounced back and forth between the so-called private sector MSM and public television; proving that journalistic parasites are all-purpose propagandists.

Public television remains Moyers’ true love. I can only guess at the amount of influence he wielded in keeping non-liberal programming off the public airwaves when the Fairness Doctrine was in place. The Fairness Doctrine was withdrawn by the Ronald Reagan in 1987. In 1988 Moyers began producing numerous left-leaning documentaries with tax dollars. Documentaries that few watched I might add.

Finally, Public Television fundraising drives are gratuities for the local on-camera people and technicians who do the shows; much like street performers passing the hat. To me, they should get their baksheesh from the people who benefit from tax exempt advertising dollars.

Years ago I read that merchandising Big Bird of Sesame Street fame earns more money than all of the teams in the National Hockey League combined. The Bird’s franchise owners keep that money, while they use the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (tax dollars) to advertise their product line.

Last edited by Flanders111; June 4th, 2018 at 08:03 AM.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 4th, 2018, 06:45 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,048
Even if every negative thing you say about CPB/NPR/PBS is correct, it's still an asset to the USA and its citizens.

Human-devised systems are imperfect. Always, it's balancing the gain against the loss.

On that basis, listener-supported public broadcasting is a plus.
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 4th, 2018, 07:54 AM   #3
#freetommy
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 27,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Even if every negative thing you say about CPB/NPR/PBS is correct, it's still an asset to the USA and its citizens.

Human-devised systems are imperfect. Always, it's balancing the gain against the loss.

On that basis, listener-supported public broadcasting is a plus.
I would have agreed w/ you up until the current technical age we are in. It is completely unnecessary and nothing more than rent seeking and the redistribution of public dollars. Removing the "propaganda" argument completely and looking at it from a purely economic perspective what is the public gain? We now have things like podcasts and YouTube where anyone and everyone has access to listen ti and watch whatever kind of content they wish and support the creators of said content directly. There is no need for the state to use public dollars to prop up a dying platform that little to nobody uses and whos users are steadily declining by the day.
Thanks from Flanders111
Sabcat is offline  
Old June 4th, 2018, 07:56 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
On that basis, listener-supported public broadcasting is a plus.
To imaginethat: There is no objection to listeners paying for PBS out of their own pockets. I object to being taxed to promote someone else’s political beliefs.

Would you object if you were forced to support the beliefs of an organized religion with tax dollars?

Socialism/Communism is a religion in every sense except that government is its one true God and the tax collector’s morality is its doctrine. They dare not admit it on Public Television for fear the First Amendment will drive them away from the public trough.

Both Islam and Socialism/Communism are theocracies that must destroy freedom if they are to survive. Both fly in the face of mankind’s march towards freedom from totalitarian government. Islam must be legally defined as a political movement, while Socialism must be legally defined as a religion. That is the only way to deny both their First Amendment protection.

Socialism has been the most destructive of the two to date because Socialists fund their religion with tax dollars, while petroleum money is responsible for Islam’s resurgence in the 20th century. Ask yourself: Where would Socialism be today without tax dollars? Where would Islam be today without petro-dollars?

I am not naive enough to believe the SCOTUS will define Socialism as a religion as long as there are four confirmed Socialists and one probable on the Court. I do harbor a hope that Congress will finally realize that funding morality of any kind in any way is funding a religion. That simple truth should be enough to invoke the First Amendment; consequently, stop funding one group’s morality over all others. START WITH DEFUNDING PUBLIC TELEVISION.

The worst of it is that it is probably too late to legally define Socialism as a religion. Not one federal judge in a century ever defined Socialism as a religion. Not one judge on the Appellate Courts, or on the SCOTUS, ever said it in a minority opinion.



Thanks from Braveheart
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 4th, 2018, 07:58 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,847
A moment, effendi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post


Finally, Public Television fundraising drives are gratuities for the local on-camera people and technicians who do the shows; much like street performers passing the hat. To me, they should get their backsheesh from the people who benefit from tax exempt advertising dollars.

The usual spelling is baksheesh, from Persian bakhshish. These little details are telling.
hoosier88 is online now  
Old June 4th, 2018, 08:06 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier88 View Post
The usual spelling is baksheesh, from Persian bakhshish. These little details are telling.
To hoosier88: I corrected it.

Why is a misspelled word telling?
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 4th, 2018, 08:44 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,847
Shaitan's in the details

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
To hoosier88: I corrected it.

Why is a misspelled word telling?
1. It's a foreign word, although it seems to be in common use, especially when writing about the Middle East & Islam in general.

2. As a foreign word, it's important to spell it correctly, or @ least as commonly spelled in English-language media. Otherwise, the lack of attention to detail reflects on the content of the ms.

3. Did the author not know how to spell it? Did he wonder about it? He could have checked - & again, if he merely guessed @ the spelling, that's an indication of how seriously he takes the ms. - & there's no reason we should take the ms. more seriously than he does.

4. It's poor workmanship - he could have simply run a spellchecker against the entire ms. - it should have tagged backsheesh as a word that needed attention. For instance, my copy of Word correctly tagged backsheesh as possibly misspelt, & suggested the correct spelling when I tapped for alternatives.
Thanks from RNG
hoosier88 is online now  
Old June 4th, 2018, 10:03 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier88 View Post
1. It's a foreign word, although it seems to be in common use, especially when writing about the Middle East & Islam in general.

2. As a foreign word, it's important to spell it correctly, or @ least as commonly spelled in English-language media. Otherwise, the lack of attention to detail reflects on the content of the ms.

3. Did the author not know how to spell it? Did he wonder about it? He could have checked - & again, if he merely guessed @ the spelling, that's an indication of how seriously he takes the ms. - & there's no reason we should take the ms. more seriously than he does.

4. It's poor workmanship - he could have simply run a spellchecker against the entire ms. - it should have tagged backsheesh as a word that needed attention. For instance, my copy of Word correctly tagged backsheesh as possibly misspelt, & suggested the correct spelling when I tapped for alternatives.
To hoosier88: Frankly, I do not give a rat’s ass about misspelling foreign words. The spelling police love to catch me in English. Now, the foreign language spelling police are after me!

For the record, I made the mistake of spelling it phonetically which is how I pronounced in India many years ago.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 4th, 2018, 12:45 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,847
Yah, no worries

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
To hoosier88: Frankly, I do not give a rat’s ass about misspelling foreign words. The spelling police love to catch me in English. Now, the foreign language spelling police are after me!


My bad, I thought you were quoting from Flaherty's piece. Still, for the reasons I noted, the clearer the text, the better.

& why red color &/or bold the entire text? The bold makes the text harder to read.
hoosier88 is online now  
Old June 5th, 2018, 06:31 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier88 View Post
My bad, I thought you were quoting from Flaherty's piece. Still, for the reasons I noted, the clearer the text, the better.

& why red color &/or bold the entire text? The bold makes the text harder to read.
To hoosier88: See this thread:

Greetings To Everyone

Put me on your Ignore List if my format is too hard to read.
Flanders111 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk

Tags
politics, public, trough



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For me, politics is.... avlis Politicians 8 July 13th, 2017 02:31 PM
The Art of Politics Mr. Jaggers Philosophy 34 May 25th, 2013 06:01 AM
IC's politics are best described as leighredf Opinion Polls 19 December 14th, 2009 05:40 PM
Why do people protest Public Healthcare, but not Public Schools? amarinaccio514 Healthcare 51 October 12th, 2009 09:20 AM
Gay Politics tyrone_det Gay and Lesbian Rights 12 June 20th, 2009 02:25 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.