If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TMZ)   Mr. LaForge makes it so, says PBS will triumph regardless of who wins the election   (tmz.com) divider line 23
    More: Followup, LeVar Burton, Mr. LaForge, PBS, Reading Rainbow  
•       •       •

3164 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 06 Nov 2012 at 7:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



23 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-06 07:16:41 PM
But you don't have to take his word for it.
 
2012-11-06 07:18:35 PM

MrEricSir: But you don't have to take his word for it.


Instant Reading Rainbow

Use this after reading posts in this thread.
 
2012-11-06 07:19:06 PM
 
2012-11-06 07:22:41 PM
If government tax money comprises such a small portion of funding of public television and public radio, as leftists keep insisting, if it's true that they mostly live off private donations, then why all the howls and cries of Armageddon and the end of the arts as we know it whenever the subject of cutting government funding is even broached?
 
2012-11-06 07:23:04 PM
Take a look,
It's in a book,
READING RAINBOW!

LeVar rules!
 
2012-11-06 07:31:40 PM
His tab with the local grocer? Ehhhh not so much.
 
2012-11-06 07:51:52 PM
It's always fascinating that not wanting to spend government on something means you must be against it. I don't want government paying to hand out free chocolate-dipped macadamia nuts, so I must be against either chocolate, macadamia nuts, or both.
 
2012-11-06 08:29:42 PM
Read that as LaFours 
profile.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2012-11-06 09:11:38 PM

B.L.Z. Bub: If government tax money comprises such a small portion of funding of public television and public radio, as leftists keep insisting, if it's true that they mostly live off private donations, then why all the howls and cries of Armageddon and the end of the arts as we know it whenever the subject of cutting government funding is even broached?


Because by and large public television barely skates by. Cutting the funding will produce a drop in services, quality, etc, at some point. Especially given the microscopic amount of cash PBS consumes compared to defense contracts, etc.

Plus it educates and exposes people to programs which won't rot their brains quite as severely as 'honey boo boo redneck diabeetus fetus' or 'fake reallity show 302394 with real tits and a kung fu herpes'.

Not to mention the children's programming; not everyone can afford the '300 channels' package for all the 'kids' TV shows now. And some of us were raised Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street, and similar shows, so we know that it doesn't take a billion dollar network to write good childrens programming.

Seriously, PBS annual funding is, what, 5 minutes of Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/wherearewethisweek?
 
2012-11-06 09:20:23 PM

kroonermanblack: B.L.Z. Bub: If government tax money comprises such a small portion of funding of public television and public radio, as leftists keep insisting, if it's true that they mostly live off private donations, then why all the howls and cries of Armageddon and the end of the arts as we know it whenever the subject of cutting government funding is even broached?

Because by and large public television barely skates by. Cutting the funding will produce a drop in services, quality, etc, at some point. Especially given the microscopic amount of cash PBS consumes compared to defense contracts, etc.

Plus it educates and exposes people to programs which won't rot their brains quite as severely as 'honey boo boo redneck diabeetus fetus' or 'fake reallity show 302394 with real tits and a kung fu herpes'.

Not to mention the children's programming; not everyone can afford the '300 channels' package for all the 'kids' TV shows now. And some of us were raised Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street, and similar shows, so we know that it doesn't take a billion dollar network to write good childrens programming.

Seriously, PBS annual funding is, what, 5 minutes of Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/wherearewethisweek?


So when I'm told that they mostly live off private donations, it's a lie?
 
2012-11-06 09:26:27 PM
But is the Warp intermix ratio of PBS better than Nickelodeon?
 
2012-11-06 10:14:11 PM
www.dudelol.com
 
2012-11-06 10:15:40 PM

B.L.Z. Bub: kroonermanblack: B.L.Z. Bub: If government tax money comprises such a small portion of funding of public television and public radio, as leftists keep insisting, if it's true that they mostly live off private donations, then why all the howls and cries of Armageddon and the end of the arts as we know it whenever the subject of cutting government funding is even broached?

Because by and large public television barely skates by. Cutting the funding will produce a drop in services, quality, etc, at some point. Especially given the microscopic amount of cash PBS consumes compared to defense contracts, etc.

Plus it educates and exposes people to programs which won't rot their brains quite as severely as 'honey boo boo redneck diabeetus fetus' or 'fake reallity show 302394 with real tits and a kung fu herpes'.

Not to mention the children's programming; not everyone can afford the '300 channels' package for all the 'kids' TV shows now. And some of us were raised Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street, and similar shows, so we know that it doesn't take a billion dollar network to write good childrens programming.

Seriously, PBS annual funding is, what, 5 minutes of Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/wherearewethisweek?

So when I'm told that they mostly live off private donations, it's a lie?


It not a lie but with what they do run on a small change in funding can cause issues. There are a lot of better places to start cutting before something like PBS. It actually serves a purpose.
 
2012-11-06 10:48:50 PM

B.L.Z. Bub: kroonermanblack: B.L.Z. Bub: If government tax money comprises such a small portion of funding of public television and public radio, as leftists keep insisting, if it's true that they mostly live off private donations, then why all the howls and cries of Armageddon and the end of the arts as we know it whenever the subject of cutting government funding is even broached?

Because by and large public television barely skates by. Cutting the funding will produce a drop in services, quality, etc, at some point. Especially given the microscopic amount of cash PBS consumes compared to defense contracts, etc.

Plus it educates and exposes people to programs which won't rot their brains quite as severely as 'honey boo boo redneck diabeetus fetus' or 'fake reallity show 302394 with real tits and a kung fu herpes'.

Not to mention the children's programming; not everyone can afford the '300 channels' package for all the 'kids' TV shows now. And some of us were raised Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street, and similar shows, so we know that it doesn't take a billion dollar network to write good childrens programming.

Seriously, PBS annual funding is, what, 5 minutes of Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/wherearewethisweek?

So when I'm told that they mostly live off private donations, it's a lie?


How the fark did you get that out of my post? You must be a republican.
 
2012-11-07 03:35:18 AM
so where did all that Tickle Me Elmo money go?
 
2012-11-07 06:02:57 AM

jjorsett: It's always fascinating that not wanting to spend government on something means you must be against it. I don't want government paying to hand out free chocolate-dipped macadamia nuts, so I must be against either chocolate, macadamia nuts, or both.


Go suck a dick somewhere else. Your bullshiat is stale. It's farking PBS. If you're going to spit on Mr. Rogers legacy, then you can go fark your godamn self in the farking dickhole with a farking rusty nail file. I'm not going to be polite about it, I'm not going engage in a dialog, you can fark the fark right the fark off and fark yourself.
 
2012-11-07 07:07:48 AM

B.L.Z. Bub: If government tax money comprises such a small portion of funding of public television and public radio, as leftists keep insisting, if it's true that they mostly live off private donations, then why all the howls and cries of Armageddon and the end of the arts as we know it whenever the subject of cutting government funding is even broached?


So. How'd that work out for you?
 
2012-11-07 09:57:08 AM

B.L.Z. Bub: kroonermanblack: B.L.Z. Bub: If government tax money comprises such a small portion of funding of public television and public radio, as leftists keep insisting, if it's true that they mostly live off private donations, then why all the howls and cries of Armageddon and the end of the arts as we know it whenever the subject of cutting government funding is even broached?

Because by and large public television barely skates by. Cutting the funding will produce a drop in services, quality, etc, at some point. Especially given the microscopic amount of cash PBS consumes compared to defense contracts, etc.

Plus it educates and exposes people to programs which won't rot their brains quite as severely as 'honey boo boo redneck diabeetus fetus' or 'fake reallity show 302394 with real tits and a kung fu herpes'.

Not to mention the children's programming; not everyone can afford the '300 channels' package for all the 'kids' TV shows now. And some of us were raised Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street, and similar shows, so we know that it doesn't take a billion dollar network to write good childrens programming.

Seriously, PBS annual funding is, what, 5 minutes of Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/wherearewethisweek?

So when I'm told that they mostly live off private donations, it's a lie?


The amount you spent on a cup of coffee at Starbucks is exactly enough to put them into bankruptcy, and no one can cough up that additional amount.
 
2012-11-07 10:15:00 AM

kasper03: Read that as LaFours 
[profile.ak.fbcdn.net image 200x107]


Came here to say this.
 
2012-11-07 10:20:46 AM
 
2012-11-07 10:37:56 AM

MrEricSir: But you don't have to take his word for it.


Word Up!

Cameo, come out with your hands up! We have the place surrounded!
 
2012-11-07 12:33:02 PM
Ahem, this is the only Reading Rainbow theme worth listening to.
 
2012-11-08 03:41:37 PM

LowbrowDeluxe: jjorsett: It's always fascinating that not wanting to spend government on something means you must be against it. I don't want government paying to hand out free chocolate-dipped macadamia nuts, so I must be against either chocolate, macadamia nuts, or both.

Go suck a dick somewhere else. Your bullshiat is stale. It's farking PBS. If you're going to spit on Mr. Rogers legacy, then you can go fark your godamn self in the farking dickhole with a farking rusty nail file. I'm not going to be polite about it, I'm not going engage in a dialog, you can fark the fark right the fark off and fark yourself.


Another snarling lefty unfurls his debating and reasoning skills. Do you kiss your Big Bird with that mouth?
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report