House Vote to Strip NPR Funding is Symbolic, Won't Happen

The House today voted to strip NPR of federal funding.

It's a symbolic vote. Democrats in the Senate won't pass it, if they will even allow it to reach a vote. And the White House opposes it, and President Obama would veto it.

With all the problems going on in the world, it's ridiculous that Republicans would waste time on something like this.

< Justice Dept Issues Report on New Orleans Police Misconduct | March Madness >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How about the even more outrageous (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:34:05 PM EST
    and equally trumped-up movement to strip all federal funding from Planned Parenthood's many essential health services to uninsured women?

    Did you see (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 06:53:19 PM EST
    Rep. Anthony Weiner's speech on the NPR vote?  It begins:  
    Crisis averted, ladies and gentlemen. What a relief. What a relief. I'm glad we got the economy back going, I'm glad we've secured our nuclear power plants, I'm so glad the Americans are back to work. We finally found out our problem. We discovered a target that we can all agree upon.

    It's these guys. This is the problem, it's Click & Clack, the Tappet Brothers. We're finally getting rid of them. Thank God we solved this problem for the country.

    You can see/read the rest here.  I like this guys sarcasm.  Hilarious!  

    I heart him (none / 0) (#12)
    by sj on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 10:21:26 AM EST
    In the Hillary thread during the 3rd/4th party candidate run someone asked who could take a run from the left.

    I think Rep. Anthony Weiner.

    Or Bernie Sanders.


    At this point, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 11:59:59 AM EST
    I'd vote for either.  How about a Sanders/Weiner ticket?     ;-)

    FOX's collective head (none / 0) (#15)
    by weltec2 on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 11:19:17 PM EST
    would explode! ...a sOcialist in the WhITEhouse! The very thought. How horrifying.

    And it would be (none / 0) (#16)
    by Zorba on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    worth it just to see their heads exploding.    ;-)

    This should (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 06:57:00 PM EST
    come as no surprise.

    After all, they just doubled-down on their efforts to cut tsunami warning funding and throw caution and reason to the wind in the wake of the situation in Japan.
    Face it, gops are a severely limited, unprincipled lot. Wasting time on  stupid, petty, unproductive things and engaging in anti-American activities is pretty much the extent of their act.

    It's who they are. It's what they do.

    NPR is a not ... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 07:03:50 PM EST
    the entity it once was.  They run ads for big pharma, agra, oil, etc..  It's just become another arm of the corporate media.

    There are still some good people working there.  But they're fighting a losing battle.

    This whole vote thing is just a bit of political theater.  It makes the Dems look noble, increasing their fund-raising.  And it make Repubs look like they're battling the "cultural elite", increasing their fund-raising.

    I agree n/t (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 07:17:32 PM EST
    I like (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:22:23 PM EST

    My amendment would prohibit federal funds - taxpayer dollars - from being used for advertising on the partisan, political platform of Fox News."

    Just (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:34:46 PM EST

    At present, how are taxpayer dollars being used for advertising on Fox News?


    I have seen (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:36:00 PM EST
    government funded commercials and PSAs on fox.

    Aren't PSAs intended to provide (none / 0) (#6)
    by itscookin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 06:12:40 PM EST
    Information to the public? And doesn't Fox News have a large chunk of the viewing audience? Wouldn't avoiding Fox News sort of defeat the purpose of a government PSA?

    Would Pres. Obama veto? (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:28:25 PM EST

    I recall (none / 0) (#11)
    by Makarov on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 01:22:47 AM EST
    when he said he would veto any health care legislation that contained a public option. Then, 2 weeks later behind closed doors he negotiated that away.

    So far, his only veto (that I'm aware of) was that obscure bill about states recognizing other states' notaries just after the robo-signer scandal broke.


    Agree. (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 05:39:55 PM EST