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.
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.
The only NPR I ever listened to was Click & Clack the car repair show so I don't know how leftist they are. I do know they fired Juan Williams for saying he gets nervous on an airliner with muslims aboard....who doesn't? PBS isn't coy about their leftist views...they're so far gone they've even polluted "This Old House" with global warming baloney.
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?
K-12 education is legally mandated. College education is not. K-12 is the minimum standard and I don't think anyone argues that an educated populace would not be in our best interest. It is in our best interest to provide that education at no cost (other than through our taxes). If you look at countries where families must pay you will see huge descrepencies in education and poverty. I don't think there is a reasonable argument against a minimal, no-cost education.
The argument is whether you want taxpayers to pay for a Ford or a Lamborghini.
The reason I'm on the fence about free college is - it's not mandated, it PROBABLY is in the best interest of our populace today given what is needed for a job - but I haven't totally looked at it. If I did agree, I still won't fund a Lamborghini.
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.
I don't care.
Unlike you guys - I support public funding of radio, television, music and the arts.
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?
K-12 education is legally mandated. College education is not. K-12 is the minimum standard and I don't think anyone argues that an educated populace would not be in our best interest. It is in our best interest to provide that education at no cost (other than through our taxes). If you look at countries where families must pay you will see huge descrepencies in education and poverty. I don't think there is a reasonable argument against a minimal, no-cost education.
The argument is whether you want taxpayers to pay for a Ford or a Lamborghini.
The reason I'm on the fence about free college is - it's not mandated, it PROBABLY is in the best interest of our populace today given what is needed for a job - but I haven't totally looked at it. If I did agree, I still won't fund a Lamborghini.
I disagree there because in my opinion, if you can't afford kids, don't have kids. I didn't.
You pay to feed them. You pay to shelter them. You pay to clothe them. You pay for their medical care. And yes, you should pay to educate them if you can't do it on your own.
If you can't do all of things for your children, then don't have any children.
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?
K-12 education is legally mandated. College education is not. K-12 is the minimum standard and I don't think anyone argues that an educated populace would not be in our best interest. It is in our best interest to provide that education at no cost (other than through our taxes). If you look at countries where families must pay you will see huge descrepencies in education and poverty. I don't think there is a reasonable argument against a minimal, no-cost education.
The argument is whether you want taxpayers to pay for a Ford or a Lamborghini.
The reason I'm on the fence about free college is - it's not mandated, it PROBABLY is in the best interest of our populace today given what is needed for a job - but I haven't totally looked at it. If I did agree, I still won't fund a Lamborghini.
I disagree there because in my opinion, if you can't afford kids, don't have kids. I didn't.
You pay to feed them. You pay to shelter them. You pay to clothe them. You pay for their medical care. And yes, you should pay to educate them if you can't do it on your own.
If you can't do all of things for your children, then don't have any children.
I opted out of kids because I couldn't afford them and felt I would not be a good parent (and my family is genetically a mess) - but I don't have an issue paying for other kid's education. It benefits us all.
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?
K-12 education is legally mandated. College education is not. K-12 is the minimum standard and I don't think anyone argues that an educated populace would not be in our best interest. It is in our best interest to provide that education at no cost (other than through our taxes). If you look at countries where families must pay you will see huge descrepencies in education and poverty. I don't think there is a reasonable argument against a minimal, no-cost education.
The argument is whether you want taxpayers to pay for a Ford or a Lamborghini.
The reason I'm on the fence about free college is - it's not mandated, it PROBABLY is in the best interest of our populace today given what is needed for a job - but I haven't totally looked at it. If I did agree, I still won't fund a Lamborghini.
I disagree there because in my opinion, if you can't afford kids, don't have kids. I didn't.
You pay to feed them. You pay to shelter them. You pay to clothe them. You pay for their medical care. And yes, you should pay to educate them if you can't do it on your own.
If you can't do all of things for your children, then don't have any children.
I opted out of kids because I couldn't afford them and felt I would not be a good parent (and my family is genetically a mess) - but I don't have an issue paying for other kid's education. It benefits us all.
And if parents paid for their own kids education, it wouldn't benefit us all?
Besides that, I get sick of paying for all the extras. I don't want to pay for their lunch. I don't want to pay for their gymnasium or football field. I don't want to pay for field trips. And for crying out loud, if I have to pay for your kids education, can't you at least take them to the school yourself? No, I have to pay for their transportation as well.
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?
K-12 education is legally mandated. College education is not. K-12 is the minimum standard and I don't think anyone argues that an educated populace would not be in our best interest. It is in our best interest to provide that education at no cost (other than through our taxes). If you look at countries where families must pay you will see huge descrepencies in education and poverty. I don't think there is a reasonable argument against a minimal, no-cost education.
The argument is whether you want taxpayers to pay for a Ford or a Lamborghini.
The reason I'm on the fence about free college is - it's not mandated, it PROBABLY is in the best interest of our populace today given what is needed for a job - but I haven't totally looked at it. If I did agree, I still won't fund a Lamborghini.
I disagree there because in my opinion, if you can't afford kids, don't have kids. I didn't.
You pay to feed them. You pay to shelter them. You pay to clothe them. You pay for their medical care. And yes, you should pay to educate them if you can't do it on your own.
If you can't do all of things for your children, then don't have any children.
I opted out of kids because I couldn't afford them and felt I would not be a good parent (and my family is genetically a mess) - but I don't have an issue paying for other kid's education. It benefits us all.
And if parents paid for their own kids education, it wouldn't benefit us all?
Besides that, I get sick of paying for all the extras. I don't want to pay for their lunch. I don't want to pay for their gymnasium or football field. I don't want to pay for field trips. And for crying out loud, if I have to pay for your kids education, can't you at least take them to the school yourself? No, I have to pay for their transportation as well.
I know you and I will disagree...after all, we're fundamentally opposites politically
Parents DO pay. But we ALL should pay. Who pays for us in our old age? Those kids. Who eventually leads our country, create scientific and medical achievements? Those kids. Who checks in on the lonely old lady with no family? Someone's kids.
I'll pay.
Now..into specifics. Lunch? Hell yes. Kids don't learn if they're hungry and for some kids it might be the only nourishing hot meal they get. Field trips? Sure. It's part of education. A football field...you got me there. School should include plenty of physical activity but placing a premium on competitive sports is the wrong emphasis. Transportation? Yes. Consolidated centralized county schools means you can't walk to school or bike to school like I did as a kid. If you can't and you mandate education, you need to provide transportation.
No one is saying NPR and PBS have to close their doors. They are saying that taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize these businesses. They should be paid for with donations by people who find value in them.
No one is saying NPR and PBS have to close their doors. They are saying that taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize these businesses. They should be paid for with donations by people who find value in them.
Our founders never setup this federal government to pay for things like this.
That seems to be your perspective. And if you really believe that, they take donations.The question is not if it will break the government. The question is if the government should be in the business of funding television in the first place and particularly if the government should be funding news.Uh huh. You got enough for a wall, you got enough for PBS. According to Carbiner, the government funds 15% of its operating costs. It's not going to break Washington to pay for one worthwhile television station.You see only the negatives of building a wall. I see a cost savings of $160 billion annually taking care of illegals....untold jobs created along with increased revenue.....reduced costs to ICE transporting illegals, court costs, food and temporary housing....so-on.Don't give that excuse when you plan to spend 12 billion on the Wall.Because of a $20 trillion debt.
The clear answer here is a resounding no IMHO. There is no reason for the government to be funding news or entertainment.
Or education? Do you believe we are a democratic republic? A nation whose population votes to elect their representatives fits that definition, notwithstanding the myth and meme that the United States is not a democracy.
That said, a democracy needs an informed and educated population to be and remain a nation of The People, by the People and for the people. Both NPR and PBS provide more than news and entertainment - they provide many things and most are informative, educational, substantive and relevant to the lives of voters and soon to be voters (i.e. minors).
K-12 education is legally mandated. College education is not. K-12 is the minimum standard and I don't think anyone argues that an educated populace would not be in our best interest. It is in our best interest to provide that education at no cost (other than through our taxes). If you look at countries where families must pay you will see huge descrepencies in education and poverty. I don't think there is a reasonable argument against a minimal, no-cost education.
The argument is whether you want taxpayers to pay for a Ford or a Lamborghini.
The reason I'm on the fence about free college is - it's not mandated, it PROBABLY is in the best interest of our populace today given what is needed for a job - but I haven't totally looked at it. If I did agree, I still won't fund a Lamborghini.
I disagree there because in my opinion, if you can't afford kids, don't have kids. I didn't.
You pay to feed them. You pay to shelter them. You pay to clothe them. You pay for their medical care. And yes, you should pay to educate them if you can't do it on your own.
If you can't do all of things for your children, then don't have any children.
I opted out of kids because I couldn't afford them and felt I would not be a good parent (and my family is genetically a mess) - but I don't have an issue paying for other kid's education. It benefits us all.
And if parents paid for their own kids education, it wouldn't benefit us all?
Besides that, I get sick of paying for all the extras. I don't want to pay for their lunch. I don't want to pay for their gymnasium or football field. I don't want to pay for field trips. And for crying out loud, if I have to pay for your kids education, can't you at least take them to the school yourself? No, I have to pay for their transportation as well.
I know you and I will disagree...after all, we're fundamentally opposites politically
Parents DO pay. But we ALL should pay. Who pays for us in our old age? Those kids. Who eventually leads our country, create scientific and medical achievements? Those kids. Who checks in on the lonely old lady with no family? Someone's kids.
I'll pay.
Now..into specifics. Lunch? Hell yes. Kids don't learn if they're hungry and for some kids it might be the only nourishing hot meal they get. Field trips? Sure. It's part of education. A football field...you got me there. School should include plenty of physical activity but placing a premium on competitive sports is the wrong emphasis. Transportation? Yes. Consolidated centralized county schools means you can't walk to school or bike to school like I did as a kid. If you can't and you mandate education, you need to provide transportation.
Well there you go. It never stops. Why? Because somebody else is paying for it.
Our school administrators make a good six figure salary each. How much does it take to run a Fn school anyway? WTF do all these administrators do for that kind of money?
And what's wrong with parents paying more for the schools than people without children? Here, it's based on property value and not if (or how many) kids you have in the school system. In fact, I pay more for our schools than most people on my street who do have kids in them. Why am I paying more for other people's kids than the parents themselves?
The entire thing is a mess. Why? Because violins start playing when we talk about kids.
No one is saying NPR and PBS have to close their doors. They are saying that taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize these businesses. They should be paid for with donations by people who find value in them.
No one is saying NPR and PBS have to close their doors. They are saying that taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize these businesses. They should be paid for with donations by people who find value in them.
Like I already said, I support the government subsidizing the arts and public broadcasting.
No one is saying NPR and PBS have to close their doors. They are saying that taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize these businesses. They should be paid for with donations by people who find value in them.
No one is saying NPR and PBS have to close their doors. They are saying that taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize these businesses. They should be paid for with donations by people who find value in them.
Donations and advertising...they already accept some advertising....very snooty and low key products. Wouldn't it be a damn shame if they had to sell some dish soap like every other network?
No one is saying NPR and PBS have to close their doors. They are saying that taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize these businesses. They should be paid for with donations by people who find value in them.
Like I already said, I support the government subsidizing the arts and public broadcasting.
Then you should be fine with the government paying Rush to be on air, or Hannity, or Levin or Beck. The only reason you're good with NPR getting tax dollars is you agree with them.No one is saying NPR and PBS have to close their doors. They are saying that taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize these businesses. They should be paid for with donations by people who find value in them.
Like I already said, I support the government subsidizing the arts and public broadcasting.
