Episcopus wrote:And if you be an American without BBC permit please that I mock the retardation and inferiority of your television programming! Vos sugitis!
Is it really that he begins to debate on governments whilst being American?
Episcopus wrote:All I am saying, do you really think American government is better than the British? I mean, the British government is unfair in so many ways and sucks but not as much as yours.
Lex wrote:Classics programs on BBC are a case in point. You have nationalized the TV industry, which can quite easily be made to function in the private sector. And classics programs paid by taxes are, let's face it, essentially welfare for the rich.
You have nationalized the TV industry, which can quite easily be made to function in the private sector.
phil wrote:I believe that in the US some high quality programmes are made by PBS for viewing niches. That would be funded from...oh taxes.
phil wrote:See? State funded TV is a great way for non-mainstream programmes to be made.
bingley wrote:Actually, TV was not nationalised.
Emma_85 wrote:I can see that at least in politics Lex and I will probably never get on...
Emma_85 wrote:Anyway,... until I read this post just then, I had no idea that America didn't have TV license fees or national TV stations.
Emma_85 wrote:I honestly hope that they never privatise the television here. What is needed though is something similar to the German system, where you have loads of free TV stations (but with adverts to pay for their costs) as well as the BBC. I mean, who can afford Sky? I don't watch much TV anymore, because the adverts really annoy me, so I hire the DVD or only watch films on the national channels that don't interrupt their films and the BBC documentaries with adverts.
Emma_85 wrote:Something else I don't like about them being private is that I think the channels are much more independent when they aren't owned by one person.
Emma_85 wrote:And Lex, you don't really think everyone here (in Germany) pays the TV and radio license fees? Pensioners and students don't have to and most other people just don't (specially the radio ones).
Emma_85 wrote:and well CNN... lol all the things they just didn't report!
benissimus wrote:The really odd thing is that you managed to very briefly turn a discussion about a Classics television program (which you started yourself) into a very bizarre political debate.
It used to be that people sold out their freedom for (perceived) security. Nowadays, they do it for something as trivial as avoiding ads on TV.
Let me get this straight. You think that media owned and operated by a government is more independent than privately owned media???
I'm sure the Beeb never fails to report anything that would give the British government a bad name.
Emma_85 wrote:Lex, do you think taxes are theft, then?
bingley wrote:I think it comes down in part to different visions of what TV is for.
bingley wrote:Certainly you could argue that there are programmes which can and should be made by the commercial sector rather than the public sector, but some programmes which are part of the educational mission of TV would not find commercial backing.
Episcopus wrote:benissimus wrote:Even if our government is corrupt, which I certainly do not believe to be as true as you do
Watch a movie or read a book mate on the subject...or just know about it.
I can't understand, why you say, your government is not corrupt...
Emma_85 wrote:I must agree with Episcopus here. From everything I've heared and read America does seem to be very corrupt
Emma_85 wrote:but (the but is very important), only from our point of view, as all the actions we thing are corrupt are in fact legal and normal in America. So when we hear about the parliament in Texas, we're shocked, and maybe forget that what they do there is actually legal, because here it would not be.
In a word, yes.
Think about it for a second. You must either pay taxes, or you get thrown in jail (or at least run the risk of that happening), or perhaps your wages will be "garnished" (taxes plus penalties will be deducted from your pay by your employer) if you do not happen to be self-employed. You don't really have a choice in the matter. How is this morally distinguishable from extortion?
phil wrote:Lex wrote:Classics programs on BBC are a case in point. You have nationalized the TV industry, which can quite easily be made to function in the private sector. And classics programs paid by taxes are, let's face it, essentially welfare for the rich.
I am jealousissimus (guess which chapter in Wheelock I'm up to) of the TV listings I see on the BBC website. If that is what a nationalised TV service can do, then I'm all for it. We'll hopefully get that BBC series on NZ screens - probably not for a year or two, and then it'll be cut down to 40 mins to fit the 1 hour format, then lacerated with ads.
We used to have state-run TV, which was paid for by licence fees, then some years ago it was all sold to the private sector. That sector sure likes lots of ads and crap programmes doesn't it? Anything which doesn't rate doesn't get shown. And programmes such as those that the beeb produce would simply never cover their costs in a commercial market.
I believe that in the US some high quality programmes are made by PBS for viewing niches. That would be funded from...oh taxes. See? State funded TV is a great way for non-mainstream programmes to be made.
(Argue all you like about politics, but don't mess with Phil's TV!)
Episcopus wrote:Yes Taxes SUCK! Theft yes. In the U.K healthcare is payed for by taxes but to avoid a 6 month + waiting time one must go private. It is insane.
Episcopus wrote:Schools are schnitt and every thing from exercise books and textbooks must be bought by the student and free food is given to the nuts who cause nothing but trouble and spend all their benefits on cigarettes. It is theft from the good people.
Emma_85 wrote:But would you like to live in a state without roads or police or fire service or laws ....?
Emma_85 wrote:Taxes aren't theft, because they're used to help you
bingley wrote:Without the National Health Service in England I would never have existed. My parents were quite poor and my mother developed all sorts of complications while she was pregnant. They would not have been able to afford to pay for the appropriate treatment. I would certainly have died, she would have probably died. You may find that an acceptable state of affairs, Lex, I do not.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], tjnor, Yahoo [Bot] and 30 guests