Friday, October 5, 2012 3:30:30 PM
I find it amusing that a guy who thinks horse dancing is a worthwhile expense would want to prevent educational and cultural programming from reaching people who can't afford cable tv. Another way to screw the poor.
Friday, October 5, 2012 10:47:57 AM
This is a completely facetious argument and a weak attempt to look more clever than he is. By his logic, the only things we should cut are education, military support or health care. Further, if you payed attention to the debate at all, you would know that Romney said funding to PBS would be AMONG the things he would cut funding to, not the only thing. Finally, PBS was first introduced to provide an alternative to the big three stations at the time, something that is no longer necessary.
People need to stop worshipping Tyson just because he releases sound bytes that sound smarter than they are.
Friday, October 5, 2012 8:22:45 AM
Sooooo... why can't PBS just compete with other stations? Because it`s educational. Most Americans would rather be whipped up and entertained by people partying or shows about rednecks being rednecks. Even the History Channel has to whore out in your country. It`s sad when all educational programming is ignored because it`s "boring." So is the problem really with PBS?
Friday, October 5, 2012 7:46:28 AM
Sooooo... why can't PBS just compete with other stations? If they are so great then no one loses a job, in fact, maybe it helps the economy because they`d have to advertise and raise more revenue. Who says all these folks would suddenly be out of work?