Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 12 August 2012

Various driveby media television networks ^ | 12 August 2012 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[FreedBird]

Most of these Democratic talking heads tell lies as if it is normal to lie. Do they know most people who watch know they are telling another big lie? The big thing is they are never embarrassed when they lie.

[PaleoBob]

AU73???

War Eagle?

---

Just more plagiarism in the manner of CNN.

[PaleoBob]

And yet, PB, I must ask....WHY DO WE STILL HAVE THEM?

All this time the beloved pubs in congress couldn’t get rid of those things? Or maybe did they get votes on pork barrel projects and such in order to not vote something us dolts out here in la la land carrying this country on our backs so wanted?

Now we know McCain was busy working on his Campaign Finance REform that we all so dearly wanted and are so grateful for today that Super Pacs and candidates don’t collude and couldn’t be bothered with such silliness but seriously, WHY DO WE STILL HAVE THEM?

And while I’m on a roll, don’t give me this “NPR and the like are such a small part of the budget shortfall it’s not worth the effort.”

Say I have a partnership in a businessbis in trouble. I have entire office redone in exotic woods because, well the money needed to save the company is so huge that this expense won’t go near solving.

How well would that go over?

I really hope us dolts get some REAL representation and fiscal sanity in that congress.

I must remind we need that senate turned over cause Romney and Ryan, assuming they do anything, can’t do it all.

---

Well, my comment was certainly legalistic, not particularly pragmatic. PBS “SHOULD” be eradicated from the “budget. “Should” meaning “ought to but not necessarily will.”

We can look at it this way:

If Reagan didn’t go after PBS/NPR who would or why not?

I doubt anybody will, the reason being, as you say, PBS/NPR is ostensibly (pardon the expression) a small fish in a big sea. Budget-wise, that is.

My calculus argument would be that, because it relates to (and clearly undermines the sprit of-) the First Amendment protection of a free press, PBS/NPR is a LARGE violation of the law of the land, dangerous too.

To wit: EPA might spend a LOT MORE unconstitutional money than PBS/NPR but EPA is not as CLEAR a subversion of the Bill of Rights.

I can remember being a reporter in the same rooms in Washington with others including PBS/NPR’s reporters, covering the expenditures ond other doings of government. Had I been at that moment PAID by government, I surely would have altered my thinking and reporting to accommodate my employer’s agenda.

And that’s a bias in favor of government in an “estate” empowered to be a watchdog, not a lapdog. Dangerous stuff, as we all know, no matter how “little” it might be costing us.