Hollywood gets 500k grant to weave obamacare into storylines

[thereisnospoon]

probably because its tax.money, idiot

It's not "tax money".

You didn't bother to read the article, did you?

Bullshit...If the government had it before it was spent, it came from the taxpayers.
I don't give a rat's ass what the article says.
And besides that, it is propaganda. Soviet style propaganda.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What would cons do without Breitbart?

What would you do without CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, The AP, McClatchy, Gannett, Knight Ridder, etc.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

probably because its tax.money, idiot

It's not "tax money".

You didn't bother to read the article, did you?

Bullshit...If the government had it before it was spent, it came from the taxpayers.
I don't give a rat's ass what the article says.
And besides that, it is propaganda. Soviet style propaganda.

If you had bothered to read the article, you wouldn't be expending so much effort in making a fool of yourself.

For the 4th or 5th time:

THE GRANT DIDN'T COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT. IT CAME FROM A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WAY.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"The Government" didn't pay for it.

It's like none of you guys bothered to read the article.

Are you sure the organizations that funded this propaganda don't have any federal funding?

Do you have any evidence that they have received any federal funding?

Positive claims hold the burden of proof, it's not up to me to prove your negative.


The organization funding the grant is The California Endowment, they're a private trust.

Nice try......Cut the crap...You're not going to fallback position yourself on this and get away with it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's not "tax money".

You didn't bother to read the article, did you?

Bullshit...If the government had it before it was spent, it came from the taxpayers.
I don't give a rat's ass what the article says.
And besides that, it is propaganda. Soviet style propaganda.

If you had bothered to read the article, you wouldn't be expending so much effort in making a fool of yourself.

For the 4th or 5th time:

THE GRANT DIDN'T COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT. IT CAME FROM A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WAY.

And that is the cover up...Where did the money originate?
Of curse no one is going to divulge that. it would blow the government's cover.
It's still propaganda.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Bullshit...If the government had it before it was spent, it came from the taxpayers.
I don't give a rat's ass what the article says.
And besides that, it is propaganda. Soviet style propaganda.

If you had bothered to read the article, you wouldn't be expending so much effort in making a fool of yourself.

For the 4th or 5th time:

THE GRANT DIDN'T COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT. IT CAME FROM A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WAY.

And that is the cover up...Where did the money originate?
Of curse no one is going to divulge that. it would blow the government's cover.
It's still propaganda.

The "cover up"?



Do you have anything that even slightly points to the government being involved?

Or are you basing your entire point around an appeal to ignorance?

 

[asterism]

"The Government" didn't pay for it.

It's like none of you guys bothered to read the article.

Are you sure the organizations that funded this propaganda don't have any federal funding?

Do you have any evidence that they have received any federal funding?

Positive claims hold the burden of proof, it's not up to me to prove your negative.


The organization funding the grant is The California Endowment, they're a private trust.

$500,000? Who gives a shit. That's chump change to Hollywood.

It is OUR money!
The Administration should not be offering BRIBE money to Hollywood to help shove the Obama agenda down our throats.

Jesus fucking Christ. Will no one bother to read the damn article?

It's not tax money. It's not government money. It's not "our" money, or "your" money.

It's a grant from a private foundation called The California Endowment.

Federal grants to the University of Southern California:

Rates at a Glance | Research | USC

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you sure the organizations that funded this propaganda don't have any federal funding?

Do you have any evidence that they have received any federal funding?

Positive claims hold the burden of proof, it's not up to me to prove your negative.


The organization funding the grant is The California Endowment, they're a private trust.

It is OUR money!
The Administration should not be offering BRIBE money to Hollywood to help shove the Obama agenda down our throats.

Jesus fucking Christ. Will no one bother to read the damn article?

It's not tax money. It's not government money. It's not "our" money, or "your" money.

It's a grant from a private foundation called The California Endowment.

Federal grants to the University of Southern California:

Rates at a Glance | Research | USC

Those are federal grants given to students for research, not to the college - and are entirely irrelevant to anything we're talking about.

You also need to re-read the OP. The grant was given to Hollywood Health & Society (which is associated with USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center), from The California Endowment.

 

[asterism]

Do you have any evidence that they have received any federal funding?

Positive claims hold the burden of proof, it's not up to me to prove your negative.


The organization funding the grant is The California Endowment, they're a private trust.

Jesus fucking Christ. Will no one bother to read the damn article?

It's not tax money. It's not government money. It's not "our" money, or "your" money.

It's a grant from a private foundation called The California Endowment.

Federal grants to the University of Southern California:

Rates at a Glance | Research | USC

Those are federal grants given to students for research, not to the college - and are entirely irrelevant to anything we're talking about.

You also need to re-read the OP. The grant was given to Hollywood Health & Society (which is associated with USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center), from The California Endowment.

You didn't even read the links on the page.

The federal grant page I linked details rate agreement that sets the federal money from grants the University can use to pay for staff and facilities. It's common, about 1/3 of the money a researcher (not a student) gets from a federal grant goes to the University for overhead.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Federal grants to the University of Southern California:

Rates at a Glance | Research | USC

Those are federal grants given to students for research, not to the college - and are entirely irrelevant to anything we're talking about.

You also need to re-read the OP. The grant was given to Hollywood Health & Society (which is associated with USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center), from The California Endowment.

You didn't even read the links on the page.

The federal grant page I linked details rate agreement that sets the federal money from grants the University can use to pay for staff and facilities. It's common, about 1/3 of the money a researcher (not a student) gets from a federal grant goes to the University for overhead.

I'm not disagreeing with you - but it has nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

 

[asterism]

Those are federal grants given to students for research, not to the college - and are entirely irrelevant to anything we're talking about.

You also need to re-read the OP. The grant was given to Hollywood Health & Society (which is associated with USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center), from The California Endowment.

You didn't even read the links on the page.

The federal grant page I linked details rate agreement that sets the federal money from grants the University can use to pay for staff and facilities. It's common, about 1/3 of the money a researcher (not a student) gets from a federal grant goes to the University for overhead.

I'm not disagreeing with you - but it has nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

USC receives federal funding.

Regardless of how there is separate accounting, federal money is used for overhead. USC helped pay for this marketing campaign.

It's the same as me getting $1000 from the government deposited in a non-profit account and then putting $1000 in personally. I can't use ANY of that money for personal expenses. That would be considered commingling, and it's illegal.

I can't even do personal business in the same office if that overhead is funded partially by federal grants. The same concept applies here. Without the federal money, USC would not be able to participate in this campaign.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You didn't even read the links on the page.

The federal grant page I linked details rate agreement that sets the federal money from grants the University can use to pay for staff and facilities. It's common, about 1/3 of the money a researcher (not a student) gets from a federal grant goes to the University for overhead.

I'm not disagreeing with you - but it has nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

USC receives federal funding.

Regardless of how there is separate accounting, federal money is used for overhead. USC helped pay for this marketing campaign.

It's the same as me getting $1000 from the government deposited in a non-profit account and then putting $1000 in personally. I can't use ANY of that money for personal expenses. That would be considered commingling, and it's illegal.

I can't even do personal business in the same office if that overhead is funded partially by federal grants. The same concept applies here. Without the federal money, USC would not be able to participate in this campaign.

It doesn't work that way, first of all. USC is one of the largest private universities in the world, made up of hundreds of separate schools and programs.

Second, you misread the article in the OP. No money is coming from USC - the program associated with USC is recieving the grant, not giving it.

 

[asterism]

I'm not disagreeing with you - but it has nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

USC receives federal funding.

Regardless of how there is separate accounting, federal money is used for overhead. USC helped pay for this marketing campaign.

It's the same as me getting $1000 from the government deposited in a non-profit account and then putting $1000 in personally. I can't use ANY of that money for personal expenses. That would be considered commingling, and it's illegal.

I can't even do personal business in the same office if that overhead is funded partially by federal grants. The same concept applies here. Without the federal money, USC would not be able to participate in this campaign.

It doesn't work that way, first of all. USC is one of the largest private universities in the world, made up of hundreds of separate schools and programs.

Second, you misread the article in the OP. No money is coming from USC - the program associated with USC is recieving the grant, not giving it.

That assertion requires proof. Prove that USC is the entity receiving the grant.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

USC receives federal funding.

Regardless of how there is separate accounting, federal money is used for overhead. USC helped pay for this marketing campaign.

It's the same as me getting $1000 from the government deposited in a non-profit account and then putting $1000 in personally. I can't use ANY of that money for personal expenses. That would be considered commingling, and it's illegal.

I can't even do personal business in the same office if that overhead is funded partially by federal grants. The same concept applies here. Without the federal money, USC would not be able to participate in this campaign.

It doesn't work that way, first of all. USC is one of the largest private universities in the world, made up of hundreds of separate schools and programs.

Second, you misread the article in the OP. No money is coming from USC - the program associated with USC is recieving the grant, not giving it.

That assertion requires proof. Prove that USC is the entity receiving the grant.

It's all in the OP.

USC is NOT the "entity" recieving the grant. Hollywood Heath & Society is - they are associated with The Norman Lear Center, which is in turn associated with USC Annenberg School.

The grant was given by The California Endowment.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'd cut and paste, but I'm on my phone.

Read the second paragraph.

 

[asterism]

It doesn't work that way, first of all. USC is one of the largest private universities in the world, made up of hundreds of separate schools and programs.

Second, you misread the article in the OP. No money is coming from USC - the program associated with USC is recieving the grant, not giving it.

That assertion requires proof. Prove that USC is the entity receiving the grant.

It's all in the OP.

USC is NOT the "entity" recieving the grant. Hollywood Heath & Society is - they are associated with The Norman Lear Center, which is in turn associated with USC Annenberg School.

The grant was given by The California Endowment.

Ah.

You mean this Hollywood Health & Society that receives federal funding too?

Hollywood, Health & Society (HH&S) is a program at the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center that provides entertainment industry professionals with accurate and timely information for health storylines. With funders that have included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The California Endowment, the Barr Foundation, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the Grantham Foundation, ClimateWorks, Skoll Global Threats Fund, Health Resources and Services Administration's Division of Transplantation, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the program recognizes the profound impact that entertainment media have on individual knowledge and behavior.

Hollywood, Health & Society | About Us


Sorry man, this is exactly like the bailout banks claiming that their lavish bonuses came from operations and not taxpayer money.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Do you have any evidence that they have received any federal funding?

Positive claims hold the burden of proof, it's not up to me to prove your negative.


The organization funding the grant is The California Endowment, they're a private trust.

Jesus fucking Christ. Will no one bother to read the damn article?

It's not tax money. It's not government money. It's not "our" money, or "your" money.

It's a grant from a private foundation called The California Endowment.

Federal grants to the University of Southern California:

Rates at a Glance | Research | USC

Those are federal grants given to students for research, not to the college - and are entirely irrelevant to anything we're talking about.

You also need to re-read the OP. The grant was given to Hollywood Health & Society (which is associated with USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center), from The California Endowment.

Yeah....One would be disgusted at the incredible waste of taxpayer resources on some of this so called research.
It is astounding that anyone would be in support of this spending.
Investing in Bad Science | Hoover Institution
50 Examples of Government Waste
This Year's Most Outrageous Examples of Wasteful Government Spending | Economy

You defend the indefensible

 

[J.E.D]

Bullshit...If the government had it before it was spent, it came from the taxpayers.
I don't give a rat's ass what the article says.
And besides that, it is propaganda. Soviet style propaganda.

If you had bothered to read the article, you wouldn't be expending so much effort in making a fool of yourself.

For the 4th or 5th time:

THE GRANT DIDN'T COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT. IT CAME FROM A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WAY.

And that is the cover up...Where did the money originate?
Of curse no one is going to divulge that. it would blow the government's cover.
It's still propaganda.

Holy shit, you're fucking stupid

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That assertion requires proof. Prove that USC is the entity receiving the grant.

It's all in the OP.

USC is NOT the "entity" recieving the grant. Hollywood Heath & Society is - they are associated with The Norman Lear Center, which is in turn associated with USC Annenberg School.

The grant was given by The California Endowment.

Ah.

You mean this Hollywood Health & Society that receives federal funding too?

Hollywood, Health & Society (HH&S) is a program at the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center that provides entertainment industry professionals with accurate and timely information for health storylines. With funders that have included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The California Endowment, the Barr Foundation, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the Grantham Foundation, ClimateWorks, Skoll Global Threats Fund, Health Resources and Services Administration's Division of Transplantation, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the program recognizes the profound impact that entertainment media have on individual knowledge and behavior.

Hollywood, Health & Society | About Us


Sorry man, this is exactly like the bailout banks claiming that their lavish bonuses came from operations and not taxpayer money.

Again - Hollywood Health & Society is receiving the grant - not giving it.

From the OP:

Thanks to a $500,000 grant from The California Endowment, the Hollywood Health & Society, associated with with the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center, will "help TV writers tell better stories about the new health insurance law."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Federal grants to the University of Southern California:

Rates at a Glance | Research | USC

Those are federal grants given to students for research, not to the college - and are entirely irrelevant to anything we're talking about.

You also need to re-read the OP. The grant was given to Hollywood Health & Society (which is associated with USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center), from The California Endowment.

Yeah....One would be disgusted at the incredible waste of taxpayer resources on some of this so called research.
It is astounding that anyone would be in support of this spending.
Investing in Bad Science | Hoover Institution
50 Examples of Government Waste
This Year's Most Outrageous Examples of Wasteful Government Spending | Economy

You defend the indefensible

This is what's called a "red herring".