Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Stopping TAXPAYER money from funding NPR and PBS is fascist and authoritarian?
Anyone who makes that claim is a stark raving moron.
Making them close down is fascist and authoritarian. Making them be funded privately without taxpayer money is called the free market.
Flipping idiots.
We have tax payer money paying for private schools and religious pregnancy clinics, so ... why not NPR?
lol, how many times over the years of the internet has this debate been on a message board?
And the RWnuts lose every time.
Stopping TAXPAYER money from funding NPR and PBS is fascist and authoritarian?
Anyone who makes that claim is a stark raving moron.
Making them close down is fascist and authoritarian. Making them be funded privately without taxpayer money is called the free market.
Flipping idiots.
We have tax payer money paying for private schools and religious pregnancy clinics, so ... why not NPR?
Because taxpayer money also funds non-religious schools and pregnancy clinics. If you want to fund NPR, then wouldn't it be fair to use taxpayer dollars to fund Fox or Salem Communications?
lol, how many times over the years of the internet has this debate been on a message board?
And the RWnuts lose every time.
The only reason we lost is because we didn't have politicians with the balls to carry out our will. Now we do. Now we win. You'll just have to learn how to count to ten in Spanish without big bird.
lol, how many times over the years of the internet has this debate been on a message board?
And the RWnuts lose every time.
The only reason we lost is because we didn't have politicians with the balls to carry out our will. Now we do. Now we win. You'll just have to learn how to count to ten in Spanish without big bird.
I find it ironic that you are a huge advocate for taxpayers paying for private schools but not for taxpayers paying for public radio.
Stopping TAXPAYER money from funding NPR and PBS is fascist and authoritarian?
Anyone who makes that claim is a stark raving moron.
Making them close down is fascist and authoritarian. Making them be funded privately without taxpayer money is called the free market.
Flipping idiots.
We have tax payer money paying for private schools and religious pregnancy clinics, so ... why not NPR?
Because taxpayer money also funds non-religious schools and pregnancy clinics. If you want to fund NPR, then wouldn't it be fair to use taxpayer dollars to fund Fox or Salem Communications?
Why don't you create a conservative public station?
The thing is...NPR and PBS aren't really that liberal. The provide really decent coverage of all sides with minimal spin when it comes to news. It may surprise you, but I've learned MORE about "pro-Trumpers" - in a respectful humanistic way from NPR's many interviews across the country then I have from ANY commercial station. In depth conversations with real people with real concerns. We don't get that on commercial TV. In fact, we're lucky to get even 15 minutes of every half hour with actual content the rest being mindnumbing advertising.
lol, how many times over the years of the internet has this debate been on a message board?
And the RWnuts lose every time.
The only reason we lost is because we didn't have politicians with the balls to carry out our will. Now we do. Now we win. You'll just have to learn how to count to ten in Spanish without big bird.
I find it ironic that you are a huge advocate for taxpayers paying for private schools but not for taxpayers paying for public radio.
Why is that? Unlike radio, I'm going to have to pay for schools anyway. Why not schools I approve of?
Stopping TAXPAYER money from funding NPR and PBS is fascist and authoritarian?
Anyone who makes that claim is a stark raving moron.
Making them close down is fascist and authoritarian. Making them be funded privately without taxpayer money is called the free market.
Flipping idiots.
We have tax payer money paying for private schools and religious pregnancy clinics, so ... why not NPR?
Because taxpayer money also funds non-religious schools and pregnancy clinics. If you want to fund NPR, then wouldn't it be fair to use taxpayer dollars to fund Fox or Salem Communications?
Why don't you create a conservative public station?
The thing is...NPR and PBS aren't really that liberal. The provide really decent coverage of all sides with minimal spin when it comes to news. It may surprise you, but I've learned MORE about "pro-Trumpers" - in a respectful humanistic way from NPR's many interviews across the country then I have from ANY commercial station. In depth conversations with real people with real concerns. We don't get that on commercial TV. In fact, we're lucky to get even 15 minutes of every half hour with actual content the rest being mindnumbing advertising.
Stopping TAXPAYER money from funding NPR and PBS is fascist and authoritarian?
Anyone who makes that claim is a stark raving moron.
Making them close down is fascist and authoritarian. Making them be funded privately without taxpayer money is called the free market.
Flipping idiots.
We have tax payer money paying for private schools and religious pregnancy clinics, so ... why not NPR?
Because taxpayer money also funds non-religious schools and pregnancy clinics. If you want to fund NPR, then wouldn't it be fair to use taxpayer dollars to fund Fox or Salem Communications?
Why don't you create a conservative public station?
The thing is...NPR and PBS aren't really that liberal. The provide really decent coverage of all sides with minimal spin when it comes to news. It may surprise you, but I've learned MORE about "pro-Trumpers" - in a respectful humanistic way from NPR's many interviews across the country then I have from ANY commercial station. In depth conversations with real people with real concerns. We don't get that on commercial TV. In fact, we're lucky to get even 15 minutes of every half hour with actual content the rest being mindnumbing advertising.
Those who listen to it and those who find those news outlets valuable can fund them without taxpayer subsidies.
Stopping TAXPAYER money from funding NPR and PBS is fascist and authoritarian?
Anyone who makes that claim is a stark raving moron.
Making them close down is fascist and authoritarian. Making them be funded privately without taxpayer money is called the free market.
Flipping idiots.
We have tax payer money paying for private schools and religious pregnancy clinics, so ... why not NPR?
Because taxpayer money also funds non-religious schools and pregnancy clinics. If you want to fund NPR, then wouldn't it be fair to use taxpayer dollars to fund Fox or Salem Communications?
Why don't you create a conservative public station?
The thing is...NPR and PBS aren't really that liberal. The provide really decent coverage of all sides with minimal spin when it comes to news. It may surprise you, but I've learned MORE about "pro-Trumpers" - in a respectful humanistic way from NPR's many interviews across the country then I have from ANY commercial station. In depth conversations with real people with real concerns. We don't get that on commercial TV. In fact, we're lucky to get even 15 minutes of every half hour with actual content the rest being mindnumbing advertising.
If you really believe that, then they should have no problems getting ratings that way and don't need our tax dollars. They should be able to give Fox, Clear Channel, Salem Communications a run for their money.
I remember we went through something like this years ago when the Republicans cut funding for Cowboy Poetry. The left thought it was the end of the Fn world. Today, most people don't even know what that was.
lol, how many times over the years of the internet has this debate been on a message board?
And the RWnuts lose every time.
The only reason we lost is because we didn't have politicians with the balls to carry out our will. Now we do. Now we win. You'll just have to learn how to count to ten in Spanish without big bird.
I find it ironic that you are a huge advocate for taxpayers paying for private schools but not for taxpayers paying for public radio.
Why is that? Unlike radio, I'm going to have to pay for schools anyway. Why not schools I approve of?
The amount you pay for radio is miniscule and it's the only entity free of freaking commercials.
We all have to pay for schools, even me. And I have no kids. In my opinion - public education guarantees a minimum standard. That's all that is needed. If you want more, pay for it.
lol, how many times over the years of the internet has this debate been on a message board?
And the RWnuts lose every time.
The only reason we lost is because we didn't have politicians with the balls to carry out our will. Now we do. Now we win. You'll just have to learn how to count to ten in Spanish without big bird.
I find it ironic that you are a huge advocate for taxpayers paying for private schools but not for taxpayers paying for public radio.
Why is that? Unlike radio, I'm going to have to pay for schools anyway. Why not schools I approve of?
The amount you pay for radio is miniscule and it's the only entity free of freaking commercials.
We all have to pay for schools, even me. And I have no kids. In my opinion - public education guarantees a minimum standard. That's all that is needed. If you want more, pay for it.
Private education is not more or less, it's the same, just different in their teachings.
Did you have this attitude "if you want more, pay for it" when Hillary was talking about free college????
Stopping TAXPAYER money from funding NPR and PBS is fascist and authoritarian?
Anyone who makes that claim is a stark raving moron.
Making them close down is fascist and authoritarian. Making them be funded privately without taxpayer money is called the free market.
Flipping idiots.
We have tax payer money paying for private schools and religious pregnancy clinics, so ... why not NPR?
Because taxpayer money also funds non-religious schools and pregnancy clinics. If you want to fund NPR, then wouldn't it be fair to use taxpayer dollars to fund Fox or Salem Communications?
Why don't you create a conservative public station?
The thing is...NPR and PBS aren't really that liberal. The provide really decent coverage of all sides with minimal spin when it comes to news. It may surprise you, but I've learned MORE about "pro-Trumpers" - in a respectful humanistic way from NPR's many interviews across the country then I have from ANY commercial station. In depth conversations with real people with real concerns. We don't get that on commercial TV. In fact, we're lucky to get even 15 minutes of every half hour with actual content the rest being mindnumbing advertising.
If you really believe that, then they should have no problems getting ratings that way and don't need our tax dollars. They should be able to give Fox, Clear Channel, Salem Communications a run for their money.
I remember we went through something like this years ago when the Republicans cut funding for Cowboy Poetry. The left thought it was the end of the Fn world. Today, most people don't even know what that was.
Think about what GETS ratings. Seriously. A lot of it is shit. How many so-called reality shows can anyone stand? How much nudity, violence and stupidity? Yes, I'm cynical. But ratings have nothing to do with quality.
The only reason we lost is because we didn't have politicians with the balls to carry out our will. Now we do. Now we win. You'll just have to learn how to count to ten in Spanish without big bird.
I find it ironic that you are a huge advocate for taxpayers paying for private schools but not for taxpayers paying for public radio.
Why is that? Unlike radio, I'm going to have to pay for schools anyway. Why not schools I approve of?
The amount you pay for radio is miniscule and it's the only entity free of freaking commercials.
We all have to pay for schools, even me. And I have no kids. In my opinion - public education guarantees a minimum standard. That's all that is needed. If you want more, pay for it.
Private education is not more or less, it's the same, just different in their teachings.
Did you have this attitude "if you want more, pay for it" when Hillary was talking about free college????
I haven't decided yet how I feel about free college. BUT - if were to weigh in on support, it wouldn't be paying for Harvard.
Why don't you create a conservative public station?
The thing is...NPR and PBS aren't really that liberal. The provide really decent coverage of all sides with minimal spin when it comes to news. It may surprise you, but I've learned MORE about "pro-Trumpers" - in a respectful humanistic way from NPR's many interviews across the country then I have from ANY commercial station. In depth conversations with real people with real concerns. We don't get that on commercial TV. In fact, we're lucky to get even 15 minutes of every half hour with actual content the rest being mindnumbing advertising.
/---- Libtards said Mitt Romney wanted to kill Big Bird by defunding NPR. Libtards said without NPR Sesame Street would go off the air. Mitt said Sesame Street franchise was worth millions on it's own plus all of the licensing agreements. Libtards laughed and laughed and laughed saying Mitt doesn't know anything and all he wants to do is kill Big Bird. Low and behold HBO picked up Sesame Street with a 5 year option.One by one, Trump dismantles and discredits every leftist propaganda station. The stations which, have fed us a bunch of propaganda using our own money taken by taxes. It's finally time to put an end to the parasitism and propaganda. If leftists want to hear how much someone agrees with their shitty opinions, then they better pay for it by themselves.
“The Trump Administration needs to reform and cut spending dramatically, and targeting waste like the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be a good first step in showing that the Trump Administration is serious about radically reforming the federal budget,” said Brian Darling, a former aide to Paul and a former staffer at the Heritage Foundation.
PBS/NPR In Panic: Trump Administration To Defund/Privatize
The new enlightenment has begun! "Win streak" is the term that best describe Trump's presidency so far.
I find it ironic that you are a huge advocate for taxpayers paying for private schools but not for taxpayers paying for public radio.
Why is that? Unlike radio, I'm going to have to pay for schools anyway. Why not schools I approve of?
The amount you pay for radio is miniscule and it's the only entity free of freaking commercials.
We all have to pay for schools, even me. And I have no kids. In my opinion - public education guarantees a minimum standard. That's all that is needed. If you want more, pay for it.
Private education is not more or less, it's the same, just different in their teachings.
Did you have this attitude "if you want more, pay for it" when Hillary was talking about free college????
I haven't decided yet how I feel about free college. BUT - if were to weigh in on support, it wouldn't be paying for Harvard.
Oh......so NOW you don't know how you feel about it. But you feel private education is something that's not even on the table because it offers more......huh?
NPR and PBS are welcome to raise funds any legal way under the sun without getting a taxpayer subsidy.
They already fund raise, if they don't get free taxpayer money, they just need to increase the scope of the fundraising.
The Clintons raise billions through the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global
Initiative. Those entities could easily raise the money for PBS and NPR.
