[Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Thu Mar 31 14:39:58 PDT 2011
If I show that an argument can be used to support a claim that is known to
be false (or accepted as false by the proponent of the argument), then I've
provided a counterexample to the argument -- an example that shows that the
argument is fallacious (for it can be used to support false claims). I'm
sorry that for you that you don't understand this; and sorry for the
community that they have to put up with someone who is so ignorant about
basic issues of objective communication.
So here we have a case in which (a) you clearly don't know what you're
talking about but (b) you're trying to tell someone who has been teaching
the subject for 20 years that he doesn't know what he's talking about. This
is evidence that if anyone is arrogant, it is you!
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:32 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> Thanks Glenn
> You did a much better job than I ever could. Joe says an argument is
> fallacious. He doe not say why or offer a good alternative. It is fallacious
> because he says so. A little arrogant.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: Glenn Schwaller vpschwaller at gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:17:23 -0700
> To: vision2020 vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > We're not spending too much on NPR! We spend more bombing Libya in one
> day
> > > than a year's worth of NPR! I don't see any good arguments supporting
> your
> > > case. That's all.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:37 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> N PR receives less than half it's funding from the government. It is
> not a
> > >> 100% federal entity. Its management is private and so should it's
> funding.
> > >> Your comparison with colleges is still apples and orange. You said "
> If you
> > >> can tell me a better way for the US to spend it money, I'll listen."
> The
> > >> problem is we are spending too much. We are head over heels in debt
> and need
> > >> to cut many other things in addition to NPR funding. To name just a
> few
> > >> OSHSA, EPA, planned ParentHood, and even waste in the military. I
> would not
> > >> cut FDA or Child Protective Services. Both of these are more important
> that
> > >> funding NPR. I was the Compliance officer for most of the feed
> companies I
> > >> worked for. I dealt with all of the agencies. EPA and OSHA were
> ridiculous.
> > >> We had some feed bend at Lewiston the bottom of witch were about 15
> feet in
> > >> the air. Feed sometimes hung up in them. We had to hang in the air
> with one
> > >> hand and beat on them with a hammer with the other hand. To make it
> safer we
> > >> installed a cat
> > >> walk bellow them to salve the problem. OSHSA made us take them out
> because
> > >> the regulations sday you have to be able to walk down a cat walk.
> There was
> > >> not room to do that, so we were back to clearing bins in an unsafe
> manner.
> > >> There are many more examples I could site. FDA's regulations for the
> moist
> > >> part made sense. Our food supply is very important. Most food
> business(not
> > >> all) do their best to insure a safe food supply, but the FDA is short
> of
> > >> inspectors and can not do their job adequately. Imports are not
> properly
> > >> inspected either. When I started as manager of the feed mill in Colfax
> I put
> > >> in a ridged control system and weigh back procedure for drug use. The
> next
> > >> day after I instructed the crew on the proper procedure, I caught an
> > >> employee putting a feed scoop in a drug bin walk over to the mixer
> and dump
> > >> it in with Aureomycin falling off all the way. I fired him on the
> spot.
> > >> Roger
> > >> -----Original message-----
> > >> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > >> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:41:23 -0700
> > >> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> > >>
> > >> > NPR is the NATIONAL PUBLIC radio. NPR was set up for exactly this
> > >> > reason: to
> > >> > have a state run radio station that does not risk genuine
> objectivity
> > >> > due to
> > >> > corporate interests. It is the only such radio station in existence,
> the
> > >> > only thing of its kind. Better one than none, I think.
> > >> >
> > >> > Your question is kind of like asking, Why should we have state
> colleges?
> > >> > Why
> > >> > can't all colleges be private? The answer is the existence of state
> > >> > colleges
> > >> > is a public good: it keeps costs down, etc. I think ONE state run
> radio
> > >> > station should exist; it is a good way to use state funds, it has a
> > >> > general
> > >> > interest to the public. And really that is all that matters. If you
> can
> > >> > tell
> > >> > me of a better way for the US to spend its money, I'll listen. But
> so
> > >> > far
> > >> > you have not done that.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:48 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Joe
> > >> > > I do not know how many times I have to say I do dont wish to see
> NPR
> > >> > > disappear. They have some very good programming. They receive only
> a
> > >> > > portion
> > >> > > of their funding from the government. They can do just fine with
> out
> > >> > > it.
> > >> > > Would you please explain to me, just why you think that NPR should
> > >> > > receive
> > >> > > federal funding and Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc should
> not.not?Comparing
> > >> > > funding
> > >> > > of NPR to the military is like comparing apples and oranges.
> > >> > > Roger
> > >> > > -----Original message-----
> > >> > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > >> > > Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:37:29 -0700
> > >> > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > >> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I'm not angry, Roger. A bit frustrated but not angry.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Listen slowly. I've taught logic for 20 years. I tell you your
> > >> > > > argument
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > > fallacious and you should believe me. To do otherwise shows a
> kind
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > arrogance and disrespect for longstanding social institutions.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > So it frustrates me. You have, thus far, given very bad
> arguments
> > >> > > > for not
> > >> > > > funding NPR. I've pointed out some problems: one might take the
> very
> > >> > > words
> > >> > > > you say and support some ridiculous claim. You acknowledge that
> the
> > >> > > > claim
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > > ridiculous ("Don't fund the military") but fail to see the
> logical
> > >> > > > connection between your very words and the claim. If the words
> > >> > > > support
> > >> > > your
> > >> > > > claim they also support the ridiculous claim; if the ridiculous
> > >> > > > claim is
> > >> > > > unsupported by your words, so is your claim. But you don't want
> to
> > >> > > > play
> > >> > > > because you think I'm biased.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I'm not angry, I'm just very in-your-face. If you met me, I'd be
> in
> > >> > > > your
> > >> > > > face, too, but you'd see I wasn't angry.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Roger, you have voted for an idiot for president twice, you've
> > >> > > > supported
> > >> > > for
> > >> > > > state office a man who is openly disrespectful to our Mormon
> > >> > > > community
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > another man who is disrespectful to progressives, and you are
> now
> > >> > > > trying
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > tell me that the world would be better off without NPR.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I, on the other hand, think the world is better off with better
> > >> > > > sources
> > >> > > of
> > >> > > > information, sources that test our critical thinking skills. You
> > >> > > > can't
> > >> > > > compare NPR to Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I'd be more than happy to consider your opinion that NPR should
> not
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > funded but so far you have not given one non-fallacious argument
> in
> > >> > > support
> > >> > > > of that claim. So what am I to do? Accept your opinion because,
> > >> > > > well,
> > >> > > you're
> > >> > > > a nice guy and everyone is entitled to his position?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > No. This is public forum and I'm going to point out that,
> although
> > >> > > > you
> > >> > > have
> > >> > > > your own opinions which we are entitled to respect, it is my
> right
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > duty
> > >> > > > to note that you do not have one damn good reason for believing
> > >> > > > them.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:01 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Shame on you. Your argument is illogical. You attribute things
> to
> > >> > > > > me
> > >> > > that
> > >> > > > > arn't factual. Why do you seem so angry? I do not wish to see
> NPR
> > >> > > > > fail.
> > >> > > I
> > >> > > > > hope that they continue to survive. Only a fraction of their
> > >> > > > > funding
> > >> > > comes
> > >> > > > > from the government. Why should they recieve federal funding
> and
> > >> > > > > Fox,
> > >> > > ABC,
> > >> > > > > NBC, CBS, etc. do not? None of them should receive federal
> > >> > > > > funding.
> > >> > > That is
> > >> > > > > the only way to insure a free press.
> > >> > > > > Roger
> > >> > > > > -----Original message-----
> > >> > > > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > >> > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:09:00 -0700
> > >> > > > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > >> > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > The point is NOT supported by you or anyone else. You
> radical
> > >> > > > > > right
> > >> > > wing
> > >> > > > > > folks think your views should be adopted for no other reason
> > >> > > > > > than
> > >> > > that
> > >> > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > believe them; because you believe it is true I should also.
> But
> > >> > > > > > that
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > the case. We have a history of objective standards for
> judging
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > merits
> > >> > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > reasons and argument. It is called the discipline of logic.
> If
> > >> > > > > > you
> > >> > > had
> > >> > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > respect for the history of Western civilization and public
> > >> > > institutions
> > >> > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > would realize that. The fact that you ignore those is no
> ones
> > >> > > > > > fault
> > >> > > but
> > >> > > > > your
> > >> > > > > > own. Shame on you. Worse, you want to promote further
> ignorance
> > >> > > > > > by
> > >> > > > > > disallowing legitimate news sources (NPR) and gutting
> education.
> > >> > > > > > That
> > >> > > way
> > >> > > > > > even fewer people will be able to see through your
> irrational
> > >> > > rhetoric.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > But here in a nut shell is the issue for all fair minded
> people
> > >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > see.
> > >> > > > > You
> > >> > > > > > have nothing but fallacious arguments and unsupported
> > >> > > > > > accusations to
> > >> > > > > support
> > >> > > > > > your claims. Nothing at all. The nameless "Glenn" is in the
> > >> > > > > > exact
> > >> > > same
> > >> > > > > boat.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > The real issue is, like with respect to military funding,
> > >> > > > > > whether the
> > >> > > > > source
> > >> > > > > > funded provides a public good. Whether it is "slightly
> right" or
> > >> > > > > "slightly
> > >> > > > > > left" is completely irrelevant. Shame on you!
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM, lfalen <
> lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > The point is that is they should not be funded period. It
> > >> > > > > > > makes no
> > >> > > > > > > difference whether they are right, left or down the
> center.
> > >> > > > > > > Roger
> > >> > > > > > > -----Original message-----
> > >> > > > > > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:42:44 -0700
> > >> > > > > > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > >> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et
> al?
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > No Roger, Glenn did not answer the question. Glenn made
> > >> > > > > > > > several
> > >> > > > > > > fallacious
> > >> > > > > > > > points, some of which were pointed out and all of which
> are
> > >> > > ignored
> > >> > > > > > > below.
> > >> > > > > > > > And do you also support slavery, another view that
> "Glenn"
> > >> > > supports?
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Why bother pretending to engage in discussions about
> these
> > >> > > > > > > > issues
> > >> > > if
> > >> > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > > > IGNORE criticisms of points made? Here is another
> refutation
> > >> > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > one
> > >> > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > your
> > >> > > > > > > > points. Please respond.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > You write that NPR is "[s]lightly left of center" [even
> > >> > > > > > > > though
> > >> > > you
> > >> > > > > admit
> > >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > listening to it only "occasionally" and do not provide
> ONE
> > >> > > example
> > >> > > > > > > > supporting this claim]. If this is a reason to not fund
> NPR
> > >> > > > > > > > via
> > >> > > > > taxpayer
> > >> > > > > > > > money, then the following would also be a good argument:
> The
> > >> > > military
> > >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > slightly right of center, so it should not receive any
> > >> > > > > > > > public
> > >> > > > > funding.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > So which is it: should we end public support for the
> > >> > > > > > > > military or
> > >> > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > > > recognize that your argument is a bad one?
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM, lfalen
> > >> > > > > > > > <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > I have not been on the computer all week, but I think
> that
> > >> > > Glenn
> > >> > > > > > > answered
> > >> > > > > > > > > your question.
> > >> > > > > > > > > In response ro Nick- I do not know it Nader is right
> or
> > >> > > > > > > > > not.I
> > >> > > have
> > >> > > > > only
> > >> > > > > > > > > listened to NPR occasionally. What I have caught is
> Fresh
> > >> > > > > > > > > Air
> > >> > > or
> > >> > > > > All
> > >> > > > > > > Things
> > >> > > > > > > > > Considered. They both at the times I heard them seemed
> to
> > >> > > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > lightly
> > >> > > > > > > left of
> > >> > > > > > > > > center. Nader only mentioned Charlie Rose. I am sure
> there
> > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > lot of
> > >> > > > > > > other
> > >> > > > > > > > > hosts besides Rose. I have never heard him. In any
> event
> > >> > > > > > > > > this
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > > > all
> > >> > > > > > > > > irrelevant. It would not make any difference if they
> were
> > >> > > equally
> > >> > > > > > > balanced
> > >> > > > > > > > > or were 100% to the right. They should not be geting
> any
> > >> > > funding
> > >> > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > taxpayers. In case you don't realize it we are in a
> money
> > >> > > crunch.
> > >> > > > > Let
> > >> > > > > > > spend
> > >> > > > > > > > > only on those thing that are essential and can not be
> done
> > >> > > > > adequately
> > >> > > > > > > by the
> > >> > > > > > > > > private sector. I want to see our veterans taken care
> of
> > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > just
> > >> > > > > one
> > >> > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > many that we should be spending on. Your ideal Nation
> of
> > >> > > > > > > > > Sweden
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > > > > > geting
> > >> > > > > > > > > the message and cutting back on services before they
> wind
> > >> > > > > > > > > up
> > >> > > like
> > >> > > > > > > Greece and
> > >> > > > > > > > > Ireland. I hope they succeed, that is the ancestral
> home
> > >> > > > > > > > > of the
> > >> > > > > > > Falen's.
> > >> > > > > > > > > They come from Ostergotlund.
> > >> > > > > > > > > You may know where that is.
> > >> > > > > > > > > Roger
> > >> > > > > > > > > -----Original message-----
> > >> > > > > > > > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:27:38 -0700
> > >> > > > > > > > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for
> NPR et
> > >> > > > > > > > > al?
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > State one left wing point of view that NPR
> broadcasts,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Roger.
> > >> > > > > Just
> > >> > > > > > > one.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > They broadcast news. You are so used to listening to
> the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > lies
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > > > Fox
> > >> > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > > you confuse them for "points of view."
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:17 AM, lfalen <
> > >> > > lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > If NPR wants to broadcast left wing points of
> view
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > supporters
> > >> > > > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > willing to fund it, more power to them.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Roger
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original message-----
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Robert Dickow" dickow at turbonet.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:18:10 -0700
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Vision2020] No government support for
> NPR et
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > al?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I hear that the conservative congressmen have
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > >> > > > > > > withdrawing
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > government funding for NPR. Apparently a
> newscaster
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > fund
> > >> > > > > drive
> > >> > > > > > > > > person
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > somebody made some disparaging remarks about the
> Tea
> > >> > > Party.
> > >> > > > > Fie!
> > >> > > > > > > Fie!
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Now,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > denying public broadcasting all those scarce
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > taxpayer
> > >> > > dollars
> > >> > > > > > > sounds
> > >> > > > > > > > > like
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable and just response to such offenses if
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > you're a
> > >> > > > > > > > > conservative
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Republican sympathetic with the Tea Party
> movement,
> > >> > > right? Uh
> > >> > > > > > > > > huh.sure.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > How
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > dumb can anybody be?! NPR won't suddenly go
> belly up
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > go
> > >> > > > > off
> > >> > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > air,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > slinking off into the shadows with its tail
> between
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > its
> > >> > > legs.
> > >> > > > > > > Private
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > donors-- those dwindling middle class
> stalwarts--
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > valiantly
> > >> > > > > > > step
> > >> > > > > > > > > up
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the plate in ever greater numbers. So what will
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > actually
> > >> > > > > happen,
> > >> > > > > > > > > then, is
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > that NPR will be unfettered and free to unleash
> all
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > their
> > >> > > > > rabid
> > >> > > > > > > > > commie
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > pinko
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > liberal gun-hating womens libber staffers to say
> all
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > rabid
> > >> > > > > > > commie
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > pinko
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > tea-barfing they've always wanted to say but
> didn't
> > >> > > because
> > >> > > > > they
> > >> > > > > > > felt
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > compelled to be balanced in their commie pinko
> > >> > > tree-hugging
> > >> > > > > > > opinions
> > >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > bleeding-heart liberal union thug biased news
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > reporting.
> > >> > > > > Clearly,
> > >> > > > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > government measure will not serve the common
> good.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > And I
> > >> > > may
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > forced to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > mix even more metaphors in the future.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob Dickow, troublemaker
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> =======================================================
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > List services made available by First Step
> Internet,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since
> 1994.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> =======================================================
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > =======================================================
> > >
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110331/7ff7ac63/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list