CoachO_08 said:

---

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

---

You gotta admit, it's pretty close.

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.

---

Tell me you don't understand taxes without saying "I don't understand taxes".

Watermelon Man said:

---

CoachO_08 said:

---

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

---

You gotta admit, it's pretty close.

---

If you want to be absolutely wrong, then you "gotta admit". If you don't want to be wrong, then you don't .

Watermelon Man said:

---

CoachO_08 said:

---

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

---

You gotta admit, it's pretty close.

---

Swing and a miss by watermelon. Wow

Watermelon Man said:

---

CoachO_08 said:

---

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

---

You gotta admit, it's pretty close.

---

if you close your eyes to reality and logic, yes it does seem the same

LOYAL AG said:

---

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.

---

Tell me you don't understand taxes without saying "I don't understand taxes".

---

Quoted for truth!

Watermelon Man said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

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.

---

Tell me you don't understand taxes without saying "I don't understand taxes".

---

Quoted for truth!

---

If you have a point other than to confirm that you don't understand taxes then I missed it. Explain it to me like I'm 5.

If I'm a mobster, and I demand payment of $100 a month from everybody on the block for "protection", but then I give one lady a break because she's hot, that doesn't mean I'm "giving" her $100.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

That's funny

---

Not nearly as funny as your lack of economic sense.

Watermelon Man said:

---

CoachO_08 said:

---

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

---

You gotta admit, it's pretty close.

---

No.

No it's not.

That's about as intelligent as someone buying something they don't need "on sale" and then saying that they are saving money.

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

That doesn't put the stolen money back in my wallet.

Watermelon Man said:

---

CoachO_08 said:

---

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

---

You gotta admit, it's pretty close.

---

Liar

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

CoachO_08 said:

---

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

---

You gotta admit, it's pretty close.

---

Liar

---

Liar, pants on fire.

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.

---

More magic with numbers, one place the left excels.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

CoachO_08 said:

---

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

---

You gotta admit, it's pretty close.

---

Liar

---

Liar, pants on fire.

---

When are you going to address the first lie you posted? You said 4% of the NPR budget came from taxes, when it's closer to 50%. How come you glossed over the articles I posted?

Just your weekly reminder that before being the head of NPR that John Lansing ran a US intellegence agency that specialized in propoganda. There is a reason he was hired to run NPR.

Safe to assume jteag and Watermelon for brains are the same poster?

For this thread, it's almost like the two are talking as one.

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.

---

But Big Bird.

This is red meat for F16. I'm betting this goes at least five pages. Go get 'em.

LOYAL AG said:

---

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.

---

Tell me you don't understand taxes without saying "I don't understand taxes".

---

Look up the term "tax expenditures" when you have the time.

At it's bare essentials, it is a term for just about anything that the government chooses not to tax. While I don't think it should be applied to people keeping their own money, in the case of Public TV and NPR, it is not necessarily their own money.

WestAustinAg 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.

---

But Big Bird.

---

I didn't grow up watching Sesame Street.

I remember visiting my cousins in Houston when I was in junior high and they had something called Public TV. From the very little I saw of it, I didn't see the point of it.

jteAg said:

---

Easy fix… DON'T LISTEN!
Problem solved.

---

Doesn't harm them at all. Easiest solution is to not use our hardworking tax dollars to keep them afloat.

Change Detection said:

---

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.

---

When did STV get his/her own radio program?

baseballaficionado said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

CoachO_08 said:

---

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

---

You gotta admit, it's pretty close.

---

Liar

---

Liar, pants on fire.

---

When are you going to address the first lie you posted? You said 4% of the NPR budget came from taxes, when it's closer to 50%. How come you glossed over the articles I posted?

---

There really isn't anything to address, other than lies, misdirection, and misinformation. If you would actually read those articles (other that the headlines), you would immediately notice that they are equating public broadcasting with NPR. Public radio and television stations exist in essentially every radio and television market in the US. Most of these stations are associated with local colleges. Of course, these stations receive a lot of taxpayer support. They benefit the community. The mistake is assuming that these stations constitute NPR. They do not. NPR is an independent entity. Their member stations are completely independent an are no more a part of NPR than a member of Sam's Club is a part-owner of WalMart.

But, those articles do not mention that. Why do they want to "gloss over" that?

AgLaw said:

---

This is red meat for F16. I'm betting this goes at least five pages. Go get 'em.

---

Oh look, a radical leftist who is quite ok using taxpayer money to spew his side's propaganda.

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'd go one step further and put all of them in camps or institutions. They might as well be foreign enemy agents.

I have conducted my own research and have found your comment is be misleading and a skewed perception based on a personal cognitive bias.

However if you can provide sources for your allegations I will strongly reconsider my statement based on the evaluations of any documentation you provide.

Watermelon Man said:

---

baseballaficionado said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

CoachO_08 said:

---

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

---

You gotta admit, it's pretty close.

---

Liar

---

Liar, pants on fire.

---

When are you going to address the first lie you posted? You said 4% of the NPR budget came from taxes, when it's closer to 50%. How come you glossed over the articles I posted?

---

There really isn't anything to address, other than lies, misdirection, and misinformation. If you would actually read those articles (other that the headlines), you would immediately notice that they are equating public broadcasting with NPR. Public radio and television stations exist in essentially every radio and television market in the US. Most of these stations are associated with local colleges. Of course, these stations receive a lot of taxpayer support. They benefit the community. The mistake is assuming that these stations constitute NPR. They do not. NPR is an independent entity. Their member stations are completely independent an are no more a part of NPR than a member of Sam's Club is a part-owner of WalMart.

But, those articles do not mention that. Why do they want to "gloss over" that?

---

Absolutely false. They get about 40% of revenue from taxes, directly and indirectly. The money paid by stations to NPR is subsidized by taxpayers. Donations by individuals and corporations is tax deductible.