1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    I don't see the right using it to bash the left (c.f., Piss Christ, The Holy Virgin Mary, etc.) in your list of grievances.
     
  2. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I thought that was implied (X slaps Y, Y slaps X). We can go chicken-and-egg all you want, but we'll never get anywhere. It's like asking two arguing children, "Who started it?"
     
  3. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    I know. I guess what I mean is that "arts" funding includes pretty universally good things like PBS, and it's wankery like the Piss Christ that's used by the right to justify getting rid of it.
     
  4. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    I wonder though, let's say he does it. Do PBS / NPR disappear? Seems unlikely. They keep telling us that public funds are a fraction of their budget. So we would et commercials?
     
  5. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Doc is tired of fighting and he is generously willing to stop in exchange for total capitulation on the issue.
     
  6. DanielSimpsonDay

    DanielSimpsonDay Well-Known Member

    Oh, the right loves public broadcasting.

     
  7. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    I hope they don't disappear, but I was reading today that they would be in danger. Not sure about commercials. What might be interesting is whether their donations from "viewers like you" skyrocket, the way the ACLU's did recently. Like, whether losing the government funding might, at least in the short-term, be a financial benefit?
     
  8. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Well, if he doesn't have any then they won't be employed very long.
     
    HanSenSE likes this.
  9. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Agreed. But I would argue that said wankery doesn't appear ex nihilo. Rather, it's funded with the intention of getting a rise out of the right (and, further, to delineate who is and is not burdened with all those bourgeois hangups).

    It's not my fight and it's not my issue. Federal funding of the arts leads to a lot of really nice things, and I hate to see those imperiled. It also leads to Bible-clutching tight-asses being unable to ignore the provocations of ersatz avant-gardists. A pox on both of their houses.
     
  10. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Breitcucks!

     
    cyclingwriter2 likes this.
  11. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    You're acting like you're on neither side, yet your proposed solution (ie. "shut it down") is to give one side exactly what it wants and the other side nothing. You're not really wishing a "pox" on the Bible-clutching tight-asses, but instead total victory.

    Sounds like you're taking sides to me.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2017
    dixiehack likes this.
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Would those really nice things have been led to, as you put it, without federal funding (and since our total federal spending well exceeds federal revenue, we are talking about our collective debt)?

    If your answer is yes, then we don't need federal funding crowding out the market for it (or worse, crowding out things that are even "nicer"), right? If your answer is no, you have to question how "really nice" those things are from an aggregate utility standpoint.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page