SENATE BILL: The Atlasian National Broadcaster Bill (Law'd)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:18:28 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: The Atlasian National Broadcaster Bill (Law'd)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: The Atlasian National Broadcaster Bill (Law'd)  (Read 8034 times)
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2012, 08:13:52 AM »

I support the amendment but oppose the bill...

I appreciate Polnut's response to my concerns but I do not belive the government should be creating a station because the President doesn't like what's on television...and CERTAINLY there should not be a tax increase to crate it...

It's not as simple as that, and you know that. It's about support for the Atlasian creative industries that isn't reliant on commercial revenues, as well as a way to export to the rest of the world. I appreciate the Senator's position, but would urge him to reconsider his position and perhaps read-up on the history of public broadcasting in the rest of the world, but retain full respect regardless.

I support Senator Yankee's amendment for the record.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2012, 09:02:34 PM »

Senators have 24 hours to object to the playability amendment offered your esteemed, benevolent, madman in control.


I am still patiently awaiting a reponse to ILV's and my concern regarding the existing of cross over institutions from the US.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2012, 11:20:04 PM »

Aren't all institutions carried over unless explicitly changed (see the NUDA debate)?
Logged
Pingvin
Pingvin99
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,761
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2012, 01:37:48 AM »

Oh, I can speak there now.
I will oppose this bill in the any form.
Why?
1 - I oppose any new taxes
2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2012, 09:12:42 AM »

2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.
Really, Pingvin? This is a democratic republic here, not China. PBS isn't brainwashing Americans IRL.
Logged
Pingvin
Pingvin99
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,761
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 09, 2012, 09:22:31 AM »

2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.
Really, Pingvin? This is a democratic republic here, not China. PBS isn't brainwashing Americans IRL.
"Hate speech" term is often used by liberals to censor "radical conservative" commentators.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2012, 09:24:16 AM »

2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.
Really, Pingvin? This is a democratic republic here, not China. PBS isn't brainwashing Americans IRL.
"Hate speech" term is often used by liberals to censor "radical conservative" commentators.
And 'liberal-biased' is often used to slander media outlets that aren't Fox News.
Logged
Pingvin
Pingvin99
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,761
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 09, 2012, 09:33:40 AM »

2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.
Really, Pingvin? This is a democratic republic here, not China. PBS isn't brainwashing Americans IRL.
"Hate speech" term is often used by liberals to censor "radical conservative" commentators.
And 'liberal-biased' is often used to slander media outlets that aren't Fox News.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2012, 10:26:34 AM »

Aren't all institutions carried over unless explicitly changed (see the NUDA debate)?

Yes, but we may have changed PBS somewhere down the line.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2012, 11:19:57 AM »

2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.
Really, Pingvin? This is a democratic republic here, not China. PBS isn't brainwashing Americans IRL.
"Hate speech" term is often used by liberals to censor "radical conservative" commentators.
And 'liberal-biased' is often used to slander media outlets that aren't Fox News.

And so my point is proven. 'Liberal' is a dirty word nowadays, as it has been slammed in the faces of the average Atlasian by right-leaning outlets.

Now, back to my original point: how has the government, IRL, been brainwashing people with PBS or NPR, which it does not control?
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2012, 11:58:45 AM »

I respect the Presidnt's point about supporting arts or programs that may not be commercially sustainable...but I believe now is a time to think of how we can have less gov't, not more...and more only in the event of a national emergency. I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 09, 2012, 12:21:54 PM »

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...
So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 09, 2012, 12:48:34 PM »

I'm not ideologically opposed to this bill, but I don't see a compelling reason why we need government-funded broadcasting when there is no shortage of private options already available. Why do we need this?
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: April 09, 2012, 02:09:10 PM »

2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.
Really, Pingvin? This is a democratic republic here, not China. PBS isn't brainwashing Americans IRL.
"Hate speech" term is often used by liberals to censor "radical conservative" commentators.
And 'liberal-biased' is often used to slander media outlets that aren't Fox News.



Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 09, 2012, 04:48:12 PM »

I'm not ideologically opposed to this bill, but I don't see a compelling reason why we need government-funded broadcasting when there is no shortage of private options already available. Why do we need this?

I believe I've given a number of strong reasons, given that, I doubt I can do anything to convince you.

Oh, I can speak there now.
I will oppose this bill in the any form.
Why?
1 - I oppose any new taxes
2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.

I understand concerns about the first but I completely and utterly reject the second as pure, ill-informed paranoia.
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 09, 2012, 05:25:52 PM »

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...
So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.
This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 09, 2012, 05:43:47 PM »

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...
So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.
This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows
But in real life, no one's ever lost an election because they used your tax dollars to fund PBS and NPR.
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: April 09, 2012, 06:04:23 PM »

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...
So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.
This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows
But in real life, no one's ever lost an election because they used your tax dollars to fund PBS and NPR.
PBS is a mostly local-run, not national, and is mostly funded by donations- not taxes
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: April 09, 2012, 06:06:14 PM »
« Edited: April 09, 2012, 06:11:26 PM by President Polnut »

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...
So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.
This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows

This is a levy, which can be reduced, and if the people are soooo reactionary to consider a MAXIMUM 0.5% levy, some assault on rights, freedoms etc etc... then we have much bigger problems.

And for the record I don't believe such hyperbole.

I believe we can reduce the costs, and so reduce the levy, I continue to respect the issues MOST of the Senators opposed have presented, but I also think there is a degree of closed-mindedness to the benefits.

Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: April 09, 2012, 06:09:54 PM »

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...
So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.
This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows
But in real life, no one's ever lost an election because they used your tax dollars to fund PBS and NPR.
PBS is a mostly local-run, not national, and is mostly funded by donations- not taxes
But it is federally funded.

And anyway, would cutting more important things than this really be worth saving a few people a few tax dollars?
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: April 09, 2012, 06:12:58 PM »

I would like to invite sympathetic Senators to work with the administration to develop amendments for a graduated levy and lower levy.
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: April 09, 2012, 06:14:45 PM »

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...
So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.
This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows
But in real life, no one's ever lost an election because they used your tax dollars to fund PBS and NPR.
PBS is a mostly local-run, not national, and is mostly funded by donations- not taxes
But it is federally funded.

And anyway, would cutting more important things than this really be worth saving a few people a few tax dollars?
Nope- and you have made my point for me...there are MANY more important things so why add a burden to the people for this..." a few tax dollars" add up, kid

And President Polnut- you can call it whatever you want- for all intents and purposes a levy = tax
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: April 09, 2012, 06:15:48 PM »

I also resent your description of me Polnut as "close-minded" considering I was the one who sponsored this bill upon your request...
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: April 09, 2012, 06:20:58 PM »

I also resent your description of me Polnut as "close-minded" considering I was the one who sponsored this bill upon your request...

I'm not calling you closed-minded, but I think you have displayed a degree of closed-mindedness to this Bill, I see a difference, but understand if you don't and I apologise for the inference. I appreciate your sponsorship of it, but it's not like you didn't express a clear position from day one and have not shifted.

I didn't expect you too and I appreciate what you've presented in the debate, regardless of how much I disagree with you.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: April 09, 2012, 06:21:14 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I propose an amendment to reduce the taxes associated with this bill. I highly doubt we would have needed as much money as the original bill was asking for.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 12 queries.