Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

Post by rescripting » Fri, May 02, 2025, 2:40 PM UTC

Vegenoid wrote: post #121

mcpeepants wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is a time where our system of checks and balances can come to shine why do you think that, all things considered?

Well, it’s an opportunity for the system to prove that it can prevent even a president with a large support base from making America fascist. I gather from your comment that you are pessimistic, but regardless of likelihoods, this is the kind of situation where checks and balances could prevent some very bad things from happening. We shall see.

Post by stackbutterflow » Fri, May 02, 2025, 2:40 PM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #236

stackbutterflow wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of conservative is conserving the monarchy during the french revolution. From the start it was and remain to this day an ideology for those currently in power to conserve their power.

Oh please, not a single person besides you thinks of "conserving the monarchy during the french revolution" when using the word "conservative" besides you.

Post by chii » Fri, May 02, 2025, 2:41 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #107

hadrien01 wrote: post #2

I suppose this is in response to this executive order: ENDING TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZATION OF BIASED MEDIA https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/endi... I would add that PBS has this to say about public media funding: > The U.S. is almost literally off the chart for how little we allocate towards our public media. At the federal level, it comes out to a little over $1.50 per person per year. Compare that…

Yeah, this is the funniest thing about this EO. Decades of the Republicans chipping away at public broadcast funding resulting in public broadcasting having to ground itself firmly in outside charitable donation. Of all the ostensibly-federal organisms, they (and the Post Office, thanks Amazon) are best-situated to be outside direct monetary government influence.

Post by yladiz » Fri, May 02, 2025, 2:41 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #205

yladiz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What profound moral problem are you talking about? If you take your point even further, you could argue there’s a moral problem with forcing people who are distrusting of or despise the government to pay taxes at all, but it’s generally agreed that the health of a country in part does depend on revenues generated by taxes (since you need money to pay for things that benefit many people, like roads, public transit, et…

Yeah, the morality of taxation and the role of the state is a deep topic that has been debated for thousands of years. Nearly everyone accepts that taxation is justified for some cases where you can't really avoid benefiting from the expenditure, the textbook example being public goods like defense (you can't opt-out of benefiting from the defeat of an invading army) or a lighthouse (you can't stop a sailor who didn'…

Post by gedy » Fri, May 02, 2025, 2:41 PM UTC

DonHopkins wrote: post #204

arcbyte wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say this as a firm conservative. The courts have so far been outstanding, despite all the inappropriate pressure. I have no doubt they will continue to be. I'm also quite impressed with conservative voters who are speaking out to their conservative representatives. Ultimately though, despite many many calls not to do so, Congress has goven the executive branch unheard of powers. Executive power needs to be reigned…

[flagged]