[Carry_Okie]

Going for the stretch in your defense I see. It was you who stated that I was out of place here based upon an unsubstantiated assumption. Now you go brass ring in the same vein. Let's take a look at what was written, shall we? Said Rutherford: "I was a little incensed the station could run gay and lesbian coalition sponsorship spots — but I couldn't mention God in mine?" "Incensed" implies not only disgust but surprise, as if one should rationally expect any other kind of behavior our of an NPR station.

If I had more money to spend on advertising, there is a large population of my local neighbors who regularly listen to NPR. I'm not "supporting" them with advertising dollars, I'm reaching out to another segment of the population that may not listen to conservative talk radio and therefore haven't heard my ad.

No, you are supporting it, writing off the contribution, and rationalizing your lack of creativity in finding another way to support your local businesses accomplishing the same thing.

No, what makes him a good American is the fact that he is a dentist who seeks to expand his business, employ his neighbors and fosters a better community through a capitalist outreach and trickle-down economics.

That's a lot of assumptions. For all you know this guy could support nationalized health care. He certainly supports socialied radio communications. In supporting NPR in the name of "advertising" our dentist was also looking for a tax break, similar to the corporate communists who support public broadcasting in general. Believe me, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, Annenberg, Carnegie and the rest are NOT supporting public broadcasting for "charitable" purposes and they aren't doing it to sell trucks, publications, oil, or steel; they are doing it for ideological purposes destructive to the Constitution to inclucate a system where making money carries little risk to them. They do it for power and profit for their global investments that have sucked this country dry.

Further, buying "advertising" on public radio is fraudulent, becuause it is supposed to be a NOT for profit activity in order to qualify for the tax deduction. An unconstitutional IRS looks the other way because it's good for them. No, supporting public radio is tax-exempt influence buying, AUGMENTED BY TAX DOLLARS, and the "protagonist" in this story buys into it all when he gives them his money. You can't rationalize this by intent, because it is consequences that define accountability.

Ignoring your customers simply because you disagree with their political philosophy is business suicide and patently unAmerican.

Straw man. I never suggested he ignore his customers and he is now clearly alienating that same clientele with his comments, so your argument in his support fails the test of consistency.

You, on the other hand, are criticizing him for a background you do not know in market conditions you don't understand with insults that are more a product of image projection than reality.

You don't seem to be the sort of person who has ever run a business.

Look who's doing the projecting here? I have created real industrial products, patented them, developed the manufacturing process, built the machinery, managed regulatory compliance, and implemented production worldwide. I now own a business in the process of patenting a management method that will replace the need for regulatory government. It has been hand carried by a Senator (gratis, I might add, on the strength of its ideas alone) to every cabinet level secretary and to the Vice President.

You were saying?

[pgyanke]

It seems this will be an all day affair...


> "No, you are supporting it, writing off the contribution, and rationalizing your lack of creativity in finding another way to support your local businesses accomplishing the same thing."

Business people are very creative at promoting their businesses. It's not for a "lack of creativity" that we would advertise on an NPR station, it's for customers. If they have a strong medium (whether or not I agree with their message) and a large demographic, they can expect advertisers. It's a simple rule of marketing. What they should neither expect nor receive is taxpayer funding. When that is finally pulled, they will either die on the vine or be self-supporting. When they are no longer the "voice of balance" that they claim to be now as supported by the government, they will have to answer to their listeners and advertisers. Right now, though, it's academic.

> "That's a lot of assumptions. For all you know this guy could support nationalized health care."

And you say I'm reaching?! Let's look at what we know from the article and stop injecting our own values on him, shall we? He is a dentist. What do dentists do? They clean and repair teeth. For whom do they provide these services? Their clientele. How do they build their clientele? Advertising. I have not reached in my assumptions, you have. You have ascribed to this man a full ideological point of view not found in the article. WHERE he chooses to advertise is based on finding customers, not ideology. If he only chose based on ideology, he would be a business idiot.

> "In supporting NPR in the name of "advertising" our dentist was also looking for a tax break, similar to the corporate communists who support public broadcasting in general."

Let's see... I can reach a large segment of the population AND I get a tax deduction... He's not the one who sounds like an idiot here. I agree with your take on the IRS but while these are the rules, he is free to use them.

> "You can't rationalize this by intent, because it is consequences that define accountability."

Do you know how communist you sound? He's a business man who made a business decision. You would rather judge him based on a trumped up ideology you invented. He was incensed that he couldn't use his business slogan in his ad and has taken action against NPR. This guy is a hero. If he knew his ad would be rejected, then he set them up for a Constitutional challenge. If he's just a business man trying to make a buck in a tough market, then he's just a business man trying to make a buck in a tough market.

> "I have created real industrial products, patented them, developed the manufacturing process, built the machinery, managed regulatory compliance, and implemented production worldwide. I now own a business in the process of patenting a management method that will replace the need for regulatory government. It has been hand carried by a Senator (gratis, I might add, on the strength of its ideas alone) to every cabinet level secretary and to the Vice President."

[clapping] I'm impressed (though not nearly as impressed with you as you seem to be).

> "You were saying?"

I was saying that you have impuned a good man who is either smart at marketing his business or a Constitutional Don Quixote by attributing your own biases and myopic vision to him. He deserved better.