Did you find out why they did that?
Did the final piece have one pro-Kerry, one pro-Bush an they just needed a sane sounding person who was in the middle and you just had less froth coming out of your mouth than anyone else hey interviewed?
Is it a box of Thin Mints? If so, where do you work? 
Someone shoved the thin mints in the freezer Monday, I didn’t come in on Tuesday because of the now and they almost entirely gone by Wednesday afternoon. The coconut ones are the only ones left.
Dammit!
Samoas > Thin Mints anyway…
You are clearly deluded and un-American!
No, he said they were in the freezer Thin Mints, which are proof that God exists.
Those are fighting words…
That’s not proof of anything. It’s the problem with individual anecdotes, especially anecdotes formulated by someone anxious to make a particular point. When you say “my interview was deceptively edited …” the actor here is implicitly the aforementioned NPR, but in fact it was probably one single individual, and that individual could have had any number of thoughts or legitimate motives for making edits that you allege to be unfair. And maybe they really were unfair and the guy was an ass. It still doesn’t implicate NPR as an organization.
I mention this because it’s very much like the criticism that was once leveled against the CBC, which was alleged to be exhibiting liberal bias because “the CBC” edited a video of then-PM Stephen Harper to make him deceptively sound like he was saying something much worse than he really was. Long story short, it wasn’t “the CBC” that did it, it was one specific over-zealous reporter acting without oversight or authorization to try to sensationalize the story. What “the CBC” actually did, in an official organizational capacity, was fire the reporter. But the story was still kept circulating by CBC haters as a purported example of their awful liberal bias.
This is really the right answer; the Presidential budget proposal is pretty much a wish-list of things they’d like to get done and a sort of political statement in its own right, but Congress (specifically the House) still has to get their fingers in the pie and has the final say on the budget.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see cuts for a lot of these programs, and a larger military budget, but I would be surprised to see total funding cuts on this scale actually make it past Congress.
Well, the OP appears to have bought it hook, line, and sinker–which is my point.
If they want to increase Defense spending, they’re going to. The Public Broadcasting budget has nothing to do with it. Talking about both at once is just conflating the issue.
Also, anyone talking about Sesame Street seems to have confused to CPB with HBO.
0% of the Public Broadcasting budget is spent on producing Sesame Street. HBO produces the episodes out of their own pocket and provides them, for free, to PBS once their exclusivity ends.
How much of PBS’s budget comes from the gov and how much from “viewers like you?” Would PBS have to close shop if this passed? My god that dickhead is a fucking cretin. Me make big stick! Me not talk, me do. Me use big stick.
Original text so I can post this
PBS wouldn’t close up shop. They’d lose some funding, and lose some of their programming, but it would still function.
The biggest difference would be in rural areas, where the federal subsidies make it possible to have stations broadcasting that could not be supported by the community. Those will be the ones who lose out. People living in or near cities probably will barely notice.
A nasty, nasty puppet.
The conflict arises because an informed populace is not in the interest of political parties.
In respect to leading the way NATO is going to increase its individual funding, it proves that there are no sacred cows. Its been deemed expendable, and whether or not congress agrees is the next step.
“A billion here and pretty soon you’re talking about REAL money.”
Attributed to Sen Everett Dirksen, R-IL. Snopes isn’t sure he said it on Johnny Carson, but his library admits it’s something he’d say. Me, I saw it on Chicago’s NBC outlet. I’d still vote for that fossil.
An informed public is certainly not in the interest of one particular anti-science “alternative facts” party. The other major party alone seems OK with things like education, media, and the public knowing stuff.
What the fuck does NATO have to do with the internal processes of preserving the culture and democratic integrity of a nation? At some point, when everything goes to shit, there’s not really a lot left to preserve and protect.
Guns and Butter , or guns or butter. I am sure such an enlightend individual such as your self, has heard that phrase before. Money that’s being cut from the OP’s post, and others are going to the Military, instead of simply increasing the military budget through taxes. This is a message to other countries who are being asked to increase defense spending up to the 2% , while at the same time regenerating the Military, without raising taxes at this time.
As I have said , its been deemed expendable. Complain all you want about it, but its up to the American congress to decide if their vision matches the president.