Isn't that the same CEO who was caught on tape promising to give negative NPR coverage for Republicans and good coverage for liberals?
NOPE. It is, however, the CEO who was FRAMED for doing so by a conservative hack pile of shit (I don't believe he's a pile of shit because he's conservative, I believe he's a pile of shit because his methods have shown him to be a pile of shit). The tape was found to be edited. By the time the unedited version surfaced, the damage had been done. If you'll see, absolutely NOTHING in your comment is true whatsoever. Further, the person on the tape was a FUNDRAISING person. That person had absolutely no tied nor influence over the EDITORIAL department. http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/03/11/npr-scandal-the-real-story-please/
No, I'm sorry, but this is absolutely full of shit. You can actually go and see the numbers for yourself. If you want to be a retard conspiracy theorist about it, that's not my fault.
Its quite a stretch to claim that not collecting a tax is somehow the gov giving them money
No, it's not. They're getting quite a bit in services and benefits from society without paying them. Further, because donations to these organizations are tax deductible, the government is giving people an incentive to donate to them, thus helping them get revenue.
Whether it's 5.8% or 16% as other have said doesn't matter.
Yes, it matters very much.
Every penny of government funding is wrong.
No, it's not.
it does matter since the government has no business funding any private business or entity.
That's your opinion, but most people would consider that to be completely and utterly wrong. I fail to see the value in the idea that something has to turn a profit in order to be worth having. Quite frankly, I find that idea, and those that espouse it, to be quite retarded.
8 million dollars from the U.S. and Member State governments sounds like more than nothing.
Compared to the whole of the US budget? Yes, it is absolutely nothing.
So do I. I also get nervous around big burly rednecks. And motorcyclists with knives hanging off their belts. And police men. And.....
So you'd be advocating the exact same uneducated prejudice that he was, which is the same uneducated prejudice that drives racism, sexism, and many other isms.
Aside from all of the services that those tax payments go to support, like roads (without which there would be a much lower demand for oil and gasoline), fire protection, the Coast Guard (came quite in handy with that whole Deep Horizon thingy), etc. They essentially get those services for free, or at substantial discount, than if they had to pay taxes like a normal person.
1). NPR doesn't get "billions of dollars" from the government.
2). The oil companies enjoy special tax breaks which definitely amount to being "government funded". You cannot argue that these tax breaks don't make them government funded.
no, it is not, Me getting to keep my own money that i earned is not being funded by the government.
Yes, it is. You can go on any kind of retarded, "Taxes are theft" irrelevant rant you want, but that doesn't change the situation. In just about every civilized country, you are expected to pay a certain amount in taxes in order to maintain that country and continue the society to allow the privileges and benefits you enjoy by being part of that society. Being exempt from those taxes is government subsidizing you, because they are saying you can use those benefits, like roads, fire and police protection, without paying for them.
the government is not going to give them money are they?
As was explained, the government is giving them the services they would normally pay for without that payment. That is a subsidy.
It is only funding if we are under the belief that we never own our own money, and we are only at the will of the government.
No, it's not, and this position is completely unfounded.
1). Pull your fucking head out of your ass regarding NPR and their funding. A SMALL portion of their funding comes from the government. The vast majority of it is from listener support. They get no more in support than I imagine most other broadcast stations get.
2). I am not sure about how private these organizations can be, considering they're using the PUBLIC airwaves.
It ends at him expressing beliefs not directly associated with, or contrary to the business paying him.
Unless you are a significant public figure for your business (and even then I'm not so sure), what you believe and what you say should have fuck all to do with your employer. You are paid to do a job, not paid to do whatever the fuck they say, both on and off the clock. The sooner employers realize they have no fucking right whatsoever to have anything to do with employees off the clock, the better everyone will be.
I like how, even though NPR only gets a fraction of it's money from the government, and in all likelihood other broadcast outlets get similar benefits, you have to single out NPR as being the "government-funded" one.
The ideal would be no censorship but of course that doesn't apply to private organizations.
The problem is, the airwaves are finite, and they are using them at OUR pleasure. That makes them significantly less than private organizations.
Because then you'd have people bitching about "SOCIALIZM!" and crap. Of course, the way things are going now, people are bitching about spending too much money on education.
article seems to mention company parties - which from now on will be cancelled of course to the detriment of your colleagues and the revenue for the hospitality industry (congrats!)/quote.
1). Don't drink so fucking much? It's not that hard (unless you're an alcoholic, and if you're in recovery, then one would question the wisdom of you being at that kind of party to start with).
2). I'm sorry, but the revenue for the hospitality industry is not my concern, especially when compared to possibly bringing light to unethical behaviors of my supervisors.
If someone is insisting that I behave unethically, especially after I've explained my situation to them, then they are not worth appeasing. Clearly they have no interest in meeting me halfway, and if they are pushing for unethical behavior up front, who knows what kind of unethical behavior they will employ during the length of the business relationship?
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that the same CEO who was caught on tape promising to give negative NPR coverage for Republicans and good coverage for liberals?
NOPE. It is, however, the CEO who was FRAMED for doing so by a conservative hack pile of shit (I don't believe he's a pile of shit because he's conservative, I believe he's a pile of shit because his methods have shown him to be a pile of shit). The tape was found to be edited. By the time the unedited version surfaced, the damage had been done. If you'll see, absolutely NOTHING in your comment is true whatsoever. Further, the person on the tape was a FUNDRAISING person. That person had absolutely no tied nor influence over the EDITORIAL department. http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/03/11/npr-scandal-the-real-story-please/
Pull your head out of your ass for once.
No, I'm sorry, but this is absolutely full of shit. You can actually go and see the numbers for yourself. If you want to be a retard conspiracy theorist about it, that's not my fault.
Its quite a stretch to claim that not collecting a tax is somehow the gov giving them money
No, it's not. They're getting quite a bit in services and benefits from society without paying them. Further, because donations to these organizations are tax deductible, the government is giving people an incentive to donate to them, thus helping them get revenue.
Whether it's 5.8% or 16% as other have said doesn't matter.
Yes, it matters very much.
Every penny of government funding is wrong.
No, it's not.
it does matter since the government has no business funding any private business or entity.
That's your opinion, but most people would consider that to be completely and utterly wrong. I fail to see the value in the idea that something has to turn a profit in order to be worth having. Quite frankly, I find that idea, and those that espouse it, to be quite retarded.
Because it's largely in the public interest.
There are tons of radio stations out there.
And most of them are extremely shitty Clear Channel clone stations that play lowest common denominator drivel.
Honestly, I think this retarded idea that something HAS to turn profit in order to be worth something needs to die a painful, painful death.
Yes, he did. His statement was extremely bigoted.
8 million dollars from the U.S. and Member State governments sounds like more than nothing.
Compared to the whole of the US budget? Yes, it is absolutely nothing.
So do I. I also get nervous around big burly rednecks. And motorcyclists with knives hanging off their belts. And police men. And.....
So you'd be advocating the exact same uneducated prejudice that he was, which is the same uneducated prejudice that drives racism, sexism, and many other isms.
You can argue it's bigoted, but I wouldn't say it's racist at all.
While technically correct, I can't see how that's any better at all.
here is a budget cut we should all be able to agree on
No, it's not. For one, it's quite minuscule in the Federal budget, especially when one compares it to the subsidies of the oil companies.
Seriously, is the fraction of NPR's funding that comes from the government SO important that we should be borrowing it from China?
Seriously, are you honestly wanting to waste your time cutting shit that is less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the US Budget?
Also, the vast majority of US Debt is privately held within the country. And with regards to the foreign debt, Japan owns about as much as China.
Aside from all of the services that those tax payments go to support, like roads (without which there would be a much lower demand for oil and gasoline), fire protection, the Coast Guard (came quite in handy with that whole Deep Horizon thingy), etc. They essentially get those services for free, or at substantial discount, than if they had to pay taxes like a normal person.
1). NPR doesn't get "billions of dollars" from the government.
2). The oil companies enjoy special tax breaks which definitely amount to being "government funded". You cannot argue that these tax breaks don't make them government funded.
So you ignore a huge part of it, just so it makes your argument look better?
Except that NPR IS government funded, as I pointed out above.
Only about 10%. Several of your sources of "government funds" are just plain lies and are not accurate.
no, it is not, Me getting to keep my own money that i earned is not being funded by the government.
Yes, it is. You can go on any kind of retarded, "Taxes are theft" irrelevant rant you want, but that doesn't change the situation. In just about every civilized country, you are expected to pay a certain amount in taxes in order to maintain that country and continue the society to allow the privileges and benefits you enjoy by being part of that society. Being exempt from those taxes is government subsidizing you, because they are saying you can use those benefits, like roads, fire and police protection, without paying for them.
the government is not going to give them money are they?
As was explained, the government is giving them the services they would normally pay for without that payment. That is a subsidy.
It is only funding if we are under the belief that we never own our own money, and we are only at the will of the government.
No, it's not, and this position is completely unfounded.
No. 10% is NOT "pretty much government funded". Perhaps maybe you should try arguing with FACTS sometime.
1). Pull your fucking head out of your ass regarding NPR and their funding. A SMALL portion of their funding comes from the government. The vast majority of it is from listener support. They get no more in support than I imagine most other broadcast stations get.
2). I am not sure about how private these organizations can be, considering they're using the PUBLIC airwaves.
It ends at him expressing beliefs not directly associated with, or contrary to the business paying him.
Unless you are a significant public figure for your business (and even then I'm not so sure), what you believe and what you say should have fuck all to do with your employer. You are paid to do a job, not paid to do whatever the fuck they say, both on and off the clock. The sooner employers realize they have no fucking right whatsoever to have anything to do with employees off the clock, the better everyone will be.
I recall the government-funded NPR
I like how, even though NPR only gets a fraction of it's money from the government, and in all likelihood other broadcast outlets get similar benefits, you have to single out NPR as being the "government-funded" one.
The ideal would be no censorship but of course that doesn't apply to private organizations.
The problem is, the airwaves are finite, and they are using them at OUR pleasure. That makes them significantly less than private organizations.
Because then you'd have people bitching about "SOCIALIZM!" and crap. Of course, the way things are going now, people are bitching about spending too much money on education.
No, but you were the one that implied that teachers should be obsolete, and if you need one, then you've failed.
article seems to mention company parties - which from now on will be cancelled of course to the detriment of your colleagues and the revenue for the hospitality industry (congrats!)/quote.
1). Don't drink so fucking much? It's not that hard (unless you're an alcoholic, and if you're in recovery, then one would question the wisdom of you being at that kind of party to start with).
2). I'm sorry, but the revenue for the hospitality industry is not my concern, especially when compared to possibly bringing light to unethical behaviors of my supervisors.
Nobody likes having someone look over their shoulder and judging. Why should bosses be different?
Because they got to do it without penalty for so long?
Most places won't consider "just following orders" to be a reasonable excuse, even if they're the ones who told you what to do.
it's about doing your fuckin job, which, in sales, is to make and maintain as many relationships as you can.
If "doing your fuckin job" requires you to do unethical things on a regular basis, then you are a terrible person.
If someone is insisting that I behave unethically, especially after I've explained my situation to them, then they are not worth appeasing. Clearly they have no interest in meeting me halfway, and if they are pushing for unethical behavior up front, who knows what kind of unethical behavior they will employ during the length of the business relationship?