Politics
Politics
Out of context: Reply #24986
- Started
- Last post
- 33,467 Responses
- scarabin10
- This should be another ad run during the OscarsBuddhaHat
- This is not MTV. Nobody wants their PBS.omg
- Isn't that why we got internets?omg
- Only assholes and science denying, ignorant morons would claim that nobody wants PBS.monospaced
- I forget in between his sessions on QBN, he likes to watch Bob the Builder, Curious George, Sesame Street, and Cat in the Hat on his paid for cable television.omg
- are you referring to Nova, Nature, Masterpiece, TED, and the hundreds of science and historical documentaries on PBS?scarabin
- Congratulations on your 10th year + 1 week at Asshats Anonymous omg. You truly are a fucking asshat, and an ignorant motherfucker as well. Fuck you.BuddhaHat
- This is the same dumbshit who says its not free press if you pay for it. He also doesn't even realize pbs is totally free.monospaced
- LoL at thinking $445 Millions dollars of annual tax money spent on this is considered totally FREE.omg
- lol @ omgmoldero
- in canada, if our public media outlets weren't gov funded they wouldn't exist. there isn't be enough public demand for them to be self-sufficientGnash
- omg it's $1.37 per person and you can tune in without payingmonospaced
- all QBNrs love himmoldero
- i believe that is what omg is trying to say, if people had to pay to tune in then it wouldn't existGnash
- No he's not.monospaced
- I'm going to estimate only 25% of US citizens watch PBS. It's political leaning doesn't justify its cost or it's purpose.omg
- if PBS cannot sustain itself, we might have to rely on YouTube for public broadcasting.omg
- There PBS can continue curating content, and make money (or not) from advertisements without it affecting its "quality" controlled programming.omg
- are you suggesting PBS has some kind of leftist agenda?scarabin
- or are you just automatically defending anything remotely trump-relatedscarabin
- this has to be a new dumbass low for omg - so embarrassing - hang your head in shame dimwit.fadein11
- PBS is renowned for its leftist agenda for many years now. NPR admits its tax supported liberal bias and its Sesame Street spread of left wing propaganda.omg
- Dumb fuck. Did you just say that if PBS goes away we'd have to rely on public broadcasting? Idiot.monospaced
- omg, you clearly have no understanding, at all, about how PBS is funded. I bet idiots think that PBS will go away if the gov. doesn't add its funding. Morons.monospaced
- omg, taking away PBS funding would actually hurt trumps base the most. rural access to educational tv options in poor areas would be limitedGnash
- these kids would atrophy on a diet of power rangers instead of mr rogers neighbourhoodGnash
- it's really a tiny amount of fed money. there are better places to start cutting than thisGnash
- Many businesses maintain positive values growing culture and new businesses. PBS is like the 46 yr old kid still living in it's parents basement.omg
- ha - what like you?fadein11
- Mr. Rogers
https://www.youtube.…omg - I get what you're saying, omg. But look at "The Learning Channel, which was privatized in 1980. it features shows like, Toddlers & Tiaras.Gnash
- I understand a need, but it would be more educational to see PBS maintain their brand values while going after a better business model.omg
- well, speaking as a canuck well versed in public funding, you gotta take the shit with the good. society benefits more than it's losing by the fundingGnash
- i believe, anywayGnash
- wait ... wait ... omg ... what's wrong with the PBS "business model" and how are they not maintaining their brand values?monospaced
- @gnash. There's no questioning companies need funding, but It doesn't necessarily mean that funding needs to come from federal taxes to survive...omg
- @mono. i'm not saying anything is wrong, but lack of funding may compromise their brand values depending on how they do business to make up for lack of funding.omg
- i think much of PBS would survive without public funding, mostly because of the way they license shows.Gnash
- what wouldn't survive are the small local stations in rural, and poor, areas of the usGnash
- major cities would likely make up the shortfall through local sponsorship. again, the ones that lose are the less privilegedGnash
- The majority of PBS funding isn't coming from the government at all. It comes from donations, large and small. Gov. pulling funding is just being assholes.monospaced
- PBS prides itself on the good it does around the world, for education and science and knowledge. Cutting gov. funding is petty and would make an enemy of truth.monospaced
- @gnash - idk who those little guys were, but I think the internet will more than provide outlets for public broadcasting and making money doing it.omg
- @mono. I think 15% comes from federal funding. Pulling funds may be justified considering they're just throwing money into the wind, meanwhile people are dyingomg
- and back to square one: only science-denying, ignorant morons think gov. funding of PBS is throwing money to the wind.monospaced
- I"m talking about Devos, Trump and his supporters, like you.monospaced
- No science is being denied here. But if you want to bring in Devos, maybe PBS could get its funds from the educational budget.omg
- Yes, yes it is, but since you clearly have no idea what PBS actually does, I wouldn't expect you to know better. Devos is a fucking idiot, btw.monospaced