[Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?

[Tom Hansen]

All of this flap-trap-crap from some child that hides behind a bogus name.

One question, Mr. Squalor . . . and I am sure you have been asked this
several times before . . .

What are you going to be when you grow up?

You may now commence with your "I'm rubber, you're glue" tirade.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho





On Wed, March 30, 2011 3:17 pm, Glenn Schwaller wrote:
> Well besides refunding tuition to your poor students, you better give
> back your doctorate as well because I, and I think several others here
> agree, your attempt at logical argument is seriously flawed.  Instead
> of arrogantly patronizing Roger and others, maybe you would be best
> off to "listen slowly" to yourself.
>
> 1 - "Glenn made several fallacious points. . .,"  Let me paraphrase
> you:   "You 'professors of logic' think your views should be adopted
> for no other reason than that you believe them"  So because you think
> I made fallacious points, they are - end
> of story.  And that is NOT a fallacious argument??  Point 1:  FAIL
>
> 2 - “Roger, do you also support slavery, another view that Glenn
> supports?”  And you KNOW I support slavery how??  Because you say so?
> Because you "know" I belong to Christ Church?  Because you "know" I'm
> Doug Wilson?  You call me a racist (proof??)  using a fake name
> (proof??)  Yet it must be true because YOU say so?  Your only argument
> being 20 years of teaching logic leads you to believe that "I think
> therefore it is"  and THAT is what progressive, rational, logical
> thinking is.  Point 2:  FAIL
>
> 3 - "Glenn made several fallacious points, some of which were pointed
> out and all of which are ignored below."  You know I have ignored
> them?  Perhaps I have been out of town and not on the computer.
> Perhaps I've been ill.  Perhaps any number of things yet you say they
> are ignored.  There is no basis in fact to say they have been ignored.
>   Point 3:  FAIL.
>
> 4 - You asked Roger for one example.  I gave you three and you dismiss
> them out of hand with no opposing point of view other than to offer up
> your standard “fallacious arguments”, "they are pretty bad", “just
> irrational rhetoric”.  Then you proceed with your usual badmouthing
> and denigration of the other person, never attempting to explain why
> the other person is “irrational and misguided” other than the fact
> that you say so.  Point four:  FAIL.  Plus another fail for being
> rude, offensive, and pretentious in general.
>
> 5 - "You are so used to listening to the lies on Fox"  Let me quote
> you:  "This is crap rhetoric and you should know better."  Yes, you
> SHOULD know better.  You criticize someone for speaking what you
> consider to be rhetoric, offer no proof it IS, then turn around and
> argue with “crap rhetoric” yourself.  Point 5:  FAIL
>
> 6 – “Worse, you want to promote further ignorance by disallowing
> legitimate news sources (NPR) and gutting education”.  You offer
> nothing to support your contention NPR is more legitimate than any
> news source (please try to note the distinction between “news’ and
> “opinion”), nor any support that education has been gutted.  Except
> for the “crap rhetoric” spewed forth.  Oh yes, it’s spewed from the
> progressives so its true no doubt about it.  Point 6:  FAIL
>
> 7 - I don't care if NPR is left wing, right wing, libertarian, or
> simply bad.  There is absolutely NO reason they should feed at the
> government trough.  Your position that corporate money influences
> broadcasting is inane.  I pointed out that most corporations advertise
> on all major broadcast networks and cable networks, FOX and MSNBC
> included.  Big oil, stock brokers, big-box stores, banks, car
> companies foreign and domestic.  All advertise on all networks.  Your
> argument is they would influence FOX differently than CBS or NBC?
> Seriously?? Point 7:  FAIL
>
> 8 - Yes, give me $1 million to shut up and go away I will.  If I don’t
> keep quiet, you don’t pay.  Quite an influence you have over me.  So
> ultra-left winger George Soros gives nearly $2 million to NPR and they
> will tell him to go fly a kite when he wants an agenda pushed?
> Seriously?  Point 8 - FAIL
>
> 9 - Comparing state run colleges to state-run (it’s actually federal
> given your argument of NATIONAL)  broadcasting corporations is
> ludicrous at best.  State run colleges and federally run broadcasting
> networks - apples and oranges.  FAIL.
>
> The federal government has no business being in education.  It has no
> business being in the broadcasting industry.  NRP already accepts
> commercial funding from businesses.  It’s just couched as “support”.
> Want an example?  “Funding for NPR is provided by Chevrolet, maker of
> the 40 miles-per-charge Chevy Volt.  See one now at your local
> Chevrolet dealer.”  Sounds like corporate advertising to me.  To argue
> it is not - well then NPR lies.  They want to accept "support" from
> corporations, fine.  Limit the acknowledgement to "Program funding is
> provided by Chevrolet".  Period.
>
> And even giving you the benefit of the doubt, your only argument is
> that it “keeps costs down”.  If one is a student paying tuition to a
> university, then keeping costs down is important.  Keeping costs down
> for a broadcast network is good for the network maybe, but this
> affects out-of-pocket expense to an individual or the general public
> how??  Apples and oranges, point 9:  FAIL
>
> 10 - And I support Roger (and everyone else to whom you make
> unsubstantiated and non-factual statements about) with several rounds
> of FAIL FAIL FAIL.
>
> You and your ilk seem to think all of us “backward” people want NPR to
> go away.  Nothing is further from the truth.  (So another FAIL for
> illogical assumptions).  Roger listens to some things, I listen to
> some things (and ignore what I consider to be left-wing babble).  Just
> as you ignore what you consider to be right-wing babble from networks
> such as FOX.  And both NPR and FOX are guilty of such babble – it’s
> called “opinion programming”.  We just think government needs to keep
> it’s pointy little head out of the broadcast industry.  Enough said.
>
> GS