• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senator Rockefeller would like to get MSNBC and Fox off the air

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
34,873
Reaction score
11,902
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist

DarkWizard12

Conservative Independent
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
10,117
Reaction score
2,257
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,576
Reaction score
27,832
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
20,598
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
20,598
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
All taxpayers pay for NPR but they only hire/cater to one side, The left.
If money = speech, as the supreme court has suggested, than funding cannot reduce speech as it creates it. Therefore it cannot be anti first amendment.

If money can drown out speech (and this is the view I have), well, than we have a whole new case to argue to the SCOTUS!
 
Last edited:

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
If money = speech, as the supreme court has suggested, than funding cannot reduce speech as it creates it. Therefore it cannot be anti first amendment.
What's your take on what Rockefeller said?
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
20,598
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
What's your take on what Rockefeller said?
If you took the effort to follow the chain of quotes back up, you would note that the originator of this discussion was with Pete EU, not with the OP, as Pete's post pretty much has nothing to do with American's. Please try harder.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
If you took the effort to follow the chain of quotes back up, you would note that the originator of this discussion was with Pete EU, not with the OP, as Pete's post pretty much has nothing to do with American's. Please try harder.
Read the subject line. You got on me other thread for same thing you are doing here.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
20,598
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Read the subject line. You got on me other thread for same thing you are doing here.
Please show me how you are catching me in a lie and I am avoiding the subject in an attempt to not admit my error.
 

DarkWizard12

Conservative Independent
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
10,117
Reaction score
2,257
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If money = speech, as the supreme court has suggested, than funding cannot reduce speech as it creates it. Therefore it cannot be anti first amendment.

If money can drown out speech (and this is the view I have), well, than we have a whole new case to argue to the SCOTUS!
That's not what was argued but ok

we are talking about public funding, not private. Some of us don't agree with NPR, yet, we are forced to give our money as taxpayers to them.

Whereas with the supreme court case, it was argued for private businesses that may or may not recieve government funding to begin with. If we don't like a business giving money to political candidate, we can just find another business. we can't do that with NPR.
 
Last edited:

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,820
Reaction score
28,383
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because it doesn't need the money. How much funding does Fox get from the govt?
How much airtime would FOX have to fill without all the GOP talking heads giving them free on air talent with those nice capital columns in the background all day long? of course, maybe they are just paying back that $1 million dollar campaign donation from FOX's corporate owner.

There are different ways to support something other than a direct donation.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
20,598
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
That's not what was argued but ok

we are talking about public funding, not private. Some of us don't agree with NPR, yet, we are forced to give our money as taxpayers to them.

Whereas with the supreme court case, it was argued for private businesses that may or may not recieve government funding to begin with. If we don't like a business giving money to political candidate, we can just find another business. we can't do that with NPR.
Sorry, it was my attempt to understand your comment. Can you please tell me the reasoning behind it?
 
Top Bottom