Stimulas money goes to porn

[Emma]

why? it shows that YOU brought the NEA into the discussion and claimed "it's what the NEA does"
thus i said the NEA should be done away with
not a strawman at all

Really? I did? Who do you think gave them the money you refer to here:

Actually, that appears to be what you're doing

Why did they not deserve a grant? That's part of what the NEA does, ya know.

I asked you to clarify why you think they don't deserve the grant, because that is what the NEA does--- provide grants for the arts. Why would this particular organization not be deserving of a grant.

Instead of answering, you deflected with the strawman that the NEA shouldn't exist. Whether they should exist isn't the topic of the thread OR the question I asked you.

Keep trying. I've got all night

you brought up the NEA emma
and i have all night too

Actually, it was brought up in the video of the OP. But not to ask if they should exist, rather their grants to certain theatres (which is what I was asking of you... why you feel these were not deserving of those grants). So your strawman still stands out there, waving in the wind for all to see. So keep deflecting.

 

[DiveCon]

Really? I did? Who do you think gave them the money you refer to here:



I asked you to clarify why you think they don't deserve the grant, because that is what the NEA does--- provide grants for the arts. Why would this particular organization not be deserving of a grant.

Instead of answering, you deflected with the strawman that the NEA shouldn't exist. Whether they should exist isn't the topic of the thread OR the question I asked you.

Keep trying. I've got all night

you brought up the NEA emma
and i have all night too

Actually, it was brought up in the video of the OP. But not to ask if they should exist, rather their grants to certain theatres (which is what I was asking of you... why you feel these were not deserving of those grants). So your strawman still stands out there, waving in the wind for all to see. So keep deflecting.

and i said because the NEA shouldn't even exist
its not a strawman
it is a FACT

 

[Emma]

If you can't explain why "they got money they shouldhnt have got", then ok.

 

[Emma]

you brought up the NEA emma
and i have all night too

Actually, it was brought up in the video of the OP. But not to ask if they should exist, rather their grants to certain theatres (which is what I was asking of you... why you feel these were not deserving of those grants). So your strawman still stands out there, waving in the wind for all to see. So keep deflecting.

and i said because the NEA shouldn't even exist
its not a strawman
it is a FACT

That has nothing to do with the topic of the thread or the question I asked of you.

It's an opinion, not a fact, btw.

 

[Emma]

I'll be back later... and be careful. I hear backpedaling is hard on the knees.

 

[DiveCon]

Actually, it was brought up in the video of the OP. But not to ask if they should exist, rather their grants to certain theatres (which is what I was asking of you... why you feel these were not deserving of those grants). So your strawman still stands out there, waving in the wind for all to see. So keep deflecting.

and i said because the NEA shouldn't even exist
its not a strawman
it is a FACT

That has nothing to do with the topic of the thread or the question I asked of you.

It's an opinion, not a fact, btw.

it is my opinion also, yes
but it is also a fact that the NEA is not supported in the constitution and as such is not supporsed to be funded

 

[DiveCon]

I'll be back later... and be careful. I hear backpedaling is hard on the knees.

so dont backpeddal
cause I'm NOT

 

[SimonSheppard]

DiveCon asks: "and how much more would it cost you to put on your show had the theater not got government money?"

The answer is: I have no idea. And, safe to say, neither do you. I do not know what CounterPULSE's budget is, nor whether the grant will go to a specific project or to their general fund. It's not run like a for-profit business meeting a bottom line, and if funding were cut, I have no notion whether they would raise our rent, cut back some of their programs, or whatever. For all I know, they'll be using that grant specifically, say, to add an extra artist in residence, to increase their fiscal sponsorship program, or to avoid firing an intern. I do know that I have no expectation that, with the grant, our rent will go down.

It's my profound feeling that the CounterPULSE folks are people who care more about art than money, while Fox doesn't give a shit about anything much but ratings and rantings. Owner Rupert Murdoch is, after all, pretty well established to be a conscience-free opportunist who - taa-daaa! - adorns his British tabloid, The Sun, with pictures of women with their titties hanging out. But hey, that's ART!

Let's face it - most of the heat around this issue is about content, not budget, and if CounterPULSE were hosting a performance series celebrating the War in Iraq, Fox wouldn't have made a whimper. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Fox is throwing the specter of rampant sexuality to the hordes on the right, and they respond as if to raw meat, marhing on Obama's castle, pitchforks and torches in hand.

Sooo...I'm more than curious as to your assertion that "it is also a fact that the NEA is not supported in the constitution and as such is not supporsed to be funded." I mean, WTF? Are only programs specifically mentioned in the COnstitution permitted to be funded? Is there some anti-art amendment somewhere I missed? Or are you pulling that talking point out of your ass?

 

[SimonSheppard]

DiveCon asks: "and how much more would it cost you to put on your show had the theater not got government money?"

The answer is: I have no idea. And, safe to say, neither do you. I do not know what CounterPULSE's budget is, nor whether the grant will go to a specific project or to their general fund. It's not run like a for-profit business meeting a bottom line, and if funding were cut, I have no notion whether they would raise our rent, cut back some of their programs, or whatever. For all I know, they'll be using that grant specifically, say, to add an extra artist in residence, to increase their fiscal sponsorship program, or to avoid firing an intern. I do know that I have no expectation that, with the grant, our rent will go down.

It's my profound feeling that the CounterPULSE folks are people who care more about art than money, while Fox doesn't give a shit about anything much but ratings and rantings. Owner Rupert Murdoch is, after all, pretty well established to be a conscience-free opportunist who - taa-daaa! - adorns his British tabloid, The Sun, with pictures of women with their titties hanging out. But hey, that's ART!

Let's face it - most of the heat around this issue is about content, not budget, and if CounterPULSE were hosting a performance series celebrating the War in Iraq, Fox wouldn't have made a whimper. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Fox is throwing the specter of rampant sexuality to the hordes on the right, and they respond as if to raw meat, marhing on Obama's castle, pitchforks and torches in hand.

Sooo...I'm more than curious as to your assertion that "it is also a fact that the NEA is not supported in the constitution and as such is not supporsed to be funded." I mean, WTF? Are only programs specifically mentioned in the COnstitution permitted to be funded? Is there some anti-art amendment somewhere I missed? Or are you pulling that talking point out of your ass?

 

[DiveCon]

DiveCon asks: "and how much more would it cost you to put on your show had the theater not got government money?"

The answer is: I have no idea. And, safe to say, neither do you. I do not know what CounterPULSE's budget is, nor whether the grant will go to a specific project or to their general fund. It's not run like a for-profit business meeting a bottom line, and if funding were cut, I have no notion whether they would raise our rent, cut back some of their programs, or whatever. For all I know, they'll be using that grant specifically, say, to add an extra artist in residence, to increase their fiscal sponsorship program, or to avoid firing an intern. I do know that I have no expectation that, with the grant, our rent will go down.

It's my profound feeling that the CounterPULSE folks are people who care more about art than money, while Fox doesn't give a shit about anything much but ratings and rantings. Owner Rupert Murdoch is, after all, pretty well established to be a conscience-free opportunist who - taa-daaa! - adorns his British tabloid, The Sun, with pictures of women with their titties hanging out. But hey, that's ART!

Let's face it - most of the heat around this issue is about content, not budget, and if CounterPULSE were hosting a performance series celebrating the War in Iraq, Fox wouldn't have made a whimper. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Fox is throwing the specter of rampant sexuality to the hordes on the right, and they respond as if to raw meat, marhing on Obama's castle, pitchforks and torches in hand.

Sooo...I'm more than curious as to your assertion that "it is also a fact that the NEA is not supported in the constitution and as such is not supporsed to be funded." I mean, WTF? Are only programs specifically mentioned in the COnstitution permitted to be funded? Is there some anti-art amendment somewhere I missed? Or are you pulling that talking point out of your ass?

there are a TON of things that are being funded that are NOT constitutional
the NEA is but one
my point is that Fox News reported the story correctly
you were not claimed to have recieved a penny directly
but, you DO benefit from it by your having use of the facility
you are showing what most liberals do, fox news derangement

 

[Emma]

DiveCon asks: "and how much more would it cost you to put on your show had the theater not got government money?"

The answer is: I have no idea. And, safe to say, neither do you. I do not know what CounterPULSE's budget is, nor whether the grant will go to a specific project or to their general fund. It's not run like a for-profit business meeting a bottom line, and if funding were cut, I have no notion whether they would raise our rent, cut back some of their programs, or whatever. For all I know, they'll be using that grant specifically, say, to add an extra artist in residence, to increase their fiscal sponsorship program, or to avoid firing an intern. I do know that I have no expectation that, with the grant, our rent will go down.

Exactly my point when I posted 'And how do you know where CounterPulse applied the money? Perhaps it went to art instruction and appreciation for inner city kids.'

If it were up to me, I know exactly what I'd do with that grant money. I'd spend every cent of it to put on the biggest most patriotic show ever and I'd donate every penny earned from ticket sales to charity for the troops (perhaps the one that Sean Hannity promotes lol). And I'd make sure I sent press releases out to everyone in the media to promote the event, proceeded by a copy of the clip from FNC, and my personal invitation for FNC to come and cover the event with an offer to double the donation from ticket sales if they were to do so and agree to broadcast the story prominently on every one of their cable news shows that ran with the story in the OP.

I would do it in a heartbeat. $25,000? Hell, that's not that much. And I'm sure if I did something like this, I could find enough people willing to see me stick it to FNC to agree to donate $25K to make up what I "lost".

But then... I like to poke people with sharp sticks.