REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Trump Proposes Cutting All Funds for PBS/NPR
- Thread starter Billy Ocean
- Start date
I'm ROFLMAOing at everybody here who thinks NPR/PBS is politically "Neutral" 
I actually watched the election on PBS. I was out of town for work and at my cheapskate buddy's house who does not cable, and PBS was the only channel he could pick up on the antenna. I also I followed along "in real time" on my phone. Right off the bat, I noticed that PBS lagged behind other news outlets on displaying which states went to Trump compared to Google, CNN, etc.
As the night went on and states steadily fell to Trump, I was keeping a running tally in my head of the remaining states, realizing that Hillary's chances of winning were getting progressively slimmer with every passing 10-15 minutes. Meanwhile, my buddy is doing the Lloyd Christmas "One in a Million? So you're saying their's a chance . . .. . " routine. PBS continued to lag with keeping an updated tally on the electoral map, and the anchors were acting COMPLETELY oblivious, and willfully ignorant, to the fact that Trump was about to win. They refused to address the elephant in the room that was unfolding in front of their eyes.
If PBS were neutral, would they seriously have done such a shiat job of narrating the election :confused2: It was pathetic. Anyone with 7th grade math skills and a basic understanding of the electoral college system would have seen that Trump had won. Yet they sat at their podium with the their dicks in their hands acting like it was not happening. Doesn't sound neutral to me, especially since it is their job to report what is actually happening. Sad!
That being sad, I'm an avid listener. NPR/PBS bias will vary based on their donorship. KQED out of San Francisco is pretty biased to the left- do you really think they would get the donations needed without pandering to the local political climate :confused2:
I actually watched the election on PBS. I was out of town for work and at my cheapskate buddy's house who does not cable, and PBS was the only channel he could pick up on the antenna. I also I followed along "in real time" on my phone. Right off the bat, I noticed that PBS lagged behind other news outlets on displaying which states went to Trump compared to Google, CNN, etc.
As the night went on and states steadily fell to Trump, I was keeping a running tally in my head of the remaining states, realizing that Hillary's chances of winning were getting progressively slimmer with every passing 10-15 minutes. Meanwhile, my buddy is doing the Lloyd Christmas "One in a Million? So you're saying their's a chance . . .. . "
routine. PBS continued to lag with keeping an updated tally on the electoral map, and the anchors were acting COMPLETELY oblivious, and willfully ignorant, to the fact that Trump was about to win. They refused to address the elephant in the room that was unfolding in front of their eyes. If PBS were neutral, would they seriously have done such a shiat job of narrating the election :confused2: It was pathetic. Anyone with 7th grade math skills and a basic understanding of the electoral college system would have seen that Trump had won. Yet they sat at their podium with the their dicks in their hands acting like it was not happening. Doesn't sound neutral to me, especially since it is their job to report what is actually happening. Sad!
That being sad, I'm an avid listener. NPR/PBS bias will vary based on their donorship. KQED out of San Francisco is pretty biased to the left- do you really think they would get the donations needed without pandering to the local political climate :confused2:
How many people today could survive a week without electricity, heat, AC, running water, Internet? Vs 100 yrs ago?StuAzole said:
Dumber by the day
It's more like you defining me as elite because I appreciate CPB-funded programming. True, they do like to highlight American progress, but it is written by the winners, not the whiners.BillyOcean said:
Shibboleth, huh?
Trump already has in minions in his choir.
He needs to preach to the middle who voted for him.
Losing them will be one of the reasons he loses the next election.
He needs to preach to the middle who voted for him.
Losing them will be one of the reasons he loses the next election.
Supreme Court and fiscal policy were not right wing either, at least by neocon standards.ifallalot said:
Trump guys are offering up their wives though. Maybe the women will fetch his balls when they go unplayable.Autoprax said:
The psychopath Clintons believe in paying teachers a living salary.Sharkbiscuit said:
The conservatives would like to abolish education if they could.
She may be a psychopath but she's my psychopath!
All indications are that he has lost enough voters to doom a second term.Autoprax said:
He still has time to reverse the downtrend though.
:rockin:That has nothing to do with being smart. The world was set up to survive with the technology they had (just like today) - so homes had wood-burning stoves, wells etc. If you took away their technology, they'd have been screwed too. At a minimum, if you took away our current infrastructure but replaced it with that from 100 years ago, we'd all survive.BillyOcean said:
Flip side - if they were so smart back then, why didn't they have heat and electricity?
How many people from 100 years ago could have survived a week 2,500 years ago?
Putin will have to step it up for him.test_article said:All indications are that he has lost enough voters to doom a second term.Autoprax said:
He still has time to reverse the downtrend though.