NPR is a political arm of the DNC. It does NOT represent my beliefs nor the traditionally conservative Judeo-Christian beliefs of most of this country geographically. It is anti-Christian, pro-leftist/ Marxists in ideology and should be shut down. PERIOD.

Duh

"...are an enemy of the people, and should be treated as such." - you know who

Ciboag96 said:

---

NPR is a political arm of the DNC. It does NOT represent my beliefs nor the traditionally conservative Judeo-Christian beliefs of most of this country geographically. It is anti-Christian, pro-leftist/ Marxists in ideology

That's why the government has to fund it

---

Is this breaking news?

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

Ciboag96 said:

---

NPR is a political arm of the DNC. It does NOT represent my beliefs nor the traditionally conservative Judeo-Christian beliefs of most of this country geographically. It is anti-Christian, pro-leftist/ Marxists in ideology and should be shut down. PERIOD.

---

Just defunded of all government money and then treated like any other media source

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

Why should we fund what is essentially DNC propaganda?

I'm sure you'd like it if we funded the Limbaugh show while he was alive.

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

Easy fix... private funding. If they are going to use public funds, they should represent all sides.

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

That isn't the answer to the appropriate question.

But our government taxes its citizens to pay for it. No reason NPR shouldn't stand on its own without being something "of our federal government".

I had on my local PBS station because I was watching Nova earlier. Some clown was on saying that the vaccines had superior protection than natural infection. She says the data shows without citing a source. Such commentary is killing people. It is absolutely BS and she was pushing more jabs. NPR is trash. It was only on for a minute and I am still pissed off an hour later.

baseballaficionado said:

---

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

Easy fix... private funding. If they are going to use public funds, they should represent all sides.

---

There is no legitimate Constitution reason to fund them with taxpayer money. They should not receive government funds whether or not they represent all sides.

If they raise money by donations, then they can do what they want.

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

That doesn't solve anything. They're still spreading their propaganda to musbrains like . . . . .

Pretty funny reading a comparison between Rush and NPR. Bull in a China shop versus Bob Ross is more like it.

Fitch said:

---

Pretty funny reading a comparison between Rush and NPR. Bull in a China shop versus Bob Ross is more like it.

---

Why is the comparison invalid?

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

tax dollars still go to it... problem not solved

Defund NPR and PBS immediately.

Fitch said:

---

Pretty funny reading a comparison between Rush and NPR. Bull in a China shop versus Bob Ross is more like it.

---

Yeah, if you're comparing npr (anti-American commies) to the bulls, then you are correct.

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

I normally agree with that sentiment

However, if the feds funded NPR and it swung to the right of OAN, would that still be your answer?

Fitch said:

---

Pretty funny reading a comparison between Rush and NPR. Bull in a China shop versus Bob Ross is more like it.

---

It's actually a pretty valid comparison. Biased radio broadcast is biased whether it agrees with your politics or not.

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

Jte with another swing and miss

Feds should fun Ben Shapiro next

eric76 said:

---

baseballaficionado said:

---

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

Easy fix... private funding. If they are going to use public funds, they should represent all sides.

---

There is no legitimate Constitution reason to fund them with taxpayer money. They should not receive government funds whether or not they represent all sides.

If they raise money by donations, then they can do what they want.

---

NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government. At most, 4% of their budget comes from taxpayer money, and that includes support for local public stations and public grants for the humanities, none of which goes to their news operations.

The "Constitution reason" is that whatever federal funds they receive (a minuscule amount, and is through grants for artistic growth) is that the US Congress approved the funding.

If is it any consolation, much more federal funds, tax exemptions, and grants are targeted toward promoting specific religions, a direct violation of the US Constitution.

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

Nope. Where is the right leading radio station funded by the government?

Ciboag96 said:

---

NPR is a political arm of the DNC. It does NOT represent my beliefs nor the traditionally conservative Judeo-Christian beliefs of most of this country geographically. It is anti-Christian, pro-leftist/ Marxists in ideology and should be shut down. PERIOD.

---

I agree that they definitely seem to have a liberal bias in their own news content but they have some good content (music, biographies etc). And stations that broadcast it can also promote conservative shows as well. I'm curious though…Did you not know it was liberal leaning before you started listening? The government funds a great deal of mediums that present viewpoints that might be antithetical to my Christian beliefs…but Im also not required to listen. Honestly the problem of late is there seems to be no unbiased news on either side. So I just listen to car talk with Click and Clack

Watermelon Man said:

---

eric76 said:

---

baseballaficionado said:

---

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

Easy fix... private funding. If they are going to use public funds, they should represent all sides.

---

There is no legitimate Constitution reason to fund them with taxpayer money. They should not receive government funds whether or not they represent all sides.

If they raise money by donations, then they can do what they want.

---

NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government. At most, 4% of their budget comes from taxpayer money, and that includes support for local public stations and public grants for the humanities, none of which goes to their news operations.

The "Constitution reason" is that whatever federal funds they receive (a minuscule amount, and is through grants for artistic growth) is that the US Congress approved the funding.

If is it any consolation, much more federal funds, tax exemptions, and grants are targeted toward promoting specific religions, a direct violation of the US Constitution.

---

BS:

Quote:

---

At first glance, this distribution of funds seems to confirm that public radio's support does not come in large amounts from the direct allocation of tax moneys. After all, 5.6% is not a gigantic portion of the budget, is it? But let's look more closely. That 10.1% that comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is 99% provided by -- you guessed it -- the federal government. Those university funds, whenever they are provided by a public university, represent taxpayer-provided dollars. We can safely assert that three out of four university-supported stations are publicly funded, which means that more than 10% (three-quarters of that 13.6%) is taken from the taxpayer's pockets.

So far, we find that NPR member stations count on direct or indirect taxpayer money for some 25% of their funds -- and that's before we consider some of the largest portions of their budgets.

---

Quote:

---

In the end, then, local NPR affiliates derive something like 41% of their funding from taxes, either directly or indirectly.

---

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/10/how_public_is_nprs_funding_comments.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/taxpayers-provide-more-than-25-percent-of-nprs-funding-analyst-says

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

Shocker!

You are absolutely clueless as to how NPR pays its bills and why it should not be propaganda for the left.

I guess because you root for team blue, it is perfectly fine that taxpayers pay to support your ideas.

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

Congratulations on crafting the second most stupid post of the day. No shame in taking the silver behind this gold-medal beauty:

Quote:

---

If the price of gas affects your life you need a better, or add another job. It's that simple.

---

Please tell us how the govt "funds" religions, dipshlt.

PearlJammin said:

---

Please tell us how the govt "funds" religions, dipshlt.

---

Tax-exempt status at Federal, State, and local levels, for one.

That doesn't equate to funding religions. Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

Go get an ag tag when you're ready to talk to adults.

Quote:

---

Go get an ag tag when you're ready to talk to adults.

---

That's funny

Watermelon Man said:

---

PearlJammin said:

---

Please tell us how the govt "funds" religions, dipshlt.

---

Tax-exempt status at Federal, State, and local levels, for one.

---

that logically makes no sense

not stealing from churches isnt a handout

Tanya 93 said:

---

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

I normally agree with that sentiment

However, if the feds funded NPR and it swung to the right of OAN, would that still be your answer?

---

I would. Yep.

The government not taxing something isn't the same as the government funding something.

In order to believe that, you have to think that money first belongs to the government. It does not. It's money earned and donated by individuals.