evince
Truthmatters
the people who saw what hitler did with media
they wanted to protect us from that so they created the fairness doctrine
it worked
SO THE REPUBLICANS KILLED IT
As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
the people who saw what hitler did with media
they wanted to protect us from that so they created the fairness doctrine
it worked
SO THE REPUBLICANS KILLED IT
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.newser.com/story/122406/...n-for-gop-network-revealed-in-nixon-memo.html
Where did Roger Ailes get the idea for Fox News? Maybe from a Nixon-era memo aptly titled “A Plan For Putting the GOP on TV,” that envisioned a kind of proto-Fox News delivering “pro-administration” news to stations around the country. The 1970 memo, which Gawker found buried in the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, wanted to avoid the “censorship, the priorities, and the prejudices” of network news by taping their own segments.
With cable then a smaller phenomenon, the plan was to tape segments and rush them to local newsrooms around the country, banking on them to accept the free content. The memo is anonymous, but has Ailes’ handwriting all over it. “Basically an excellent idea,” he commented, offering to run the program. But he warned that the administration “will get some flap about news management.”
Where did Roger Ailes get the idea for Fox News? Maybe from a Nixon-era memo aptly titled “A Plan For Putting the GOP on TV,” that envisioned a kind of proto-Fox News delivering “pro-administration” news to stations around the country. The 1970 memo, which Gawker found buried in the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, wanted to avoid the “censorship, the priorities, and the prejudices” of network news by taping their own segments.
With cable then a smaller phenomenon, the plan was to tape segments and rush them to local newsrooms around the country, banking on them to accept the free content. The memo is anonymous, but has Ailes’ handwriting all over it. “Basically an excellent idea,” he commented, offering to run the program. But he warned that the administration “will get some flap about news management.”
No shit dumbfuck; what do you think happens when you run deficits? YES genius; it ADDS to the National debt. Grow a fucking brain.
Now you are going full retard. How did WE cut taxes and have a war of occupation during the Obama Presidency you willful idiot?
Dear idiot; Obama alone is responsible for the $10 trillion he ran up. STFU already; it is obvious you're a brain dead lunatic on steroids. Like I said, at the end of Trumps 8 year Presidency, get back to me on deficits.
But again, you whiny ignorant dullards had no issues with Obama's deficits, don't be a buffoonish hypocrite and whine about them 14 months into the trump Presidency.
Whiny brain dead lying liberal still stuck on Bush. 
evince
Truthmatters
Revocation[edit]
Basic doctrine[edit]
In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In 1986, the 99th Congress directed the FCC to examine alternatives to the Fairness Doctrine and to submit a report to Congress on the subject.[16]
In August 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the Court stated in their decision that they made "that determination without reaching the constitutional issue."[17] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:
“
The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.
”
At the 4-0 vote, Chairman Patrick said,
“
We seek to extend to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print media have enjoyed since our country's inception.[18]
”
Sitting commissioners at the time of the vote were:[19][20]
Dennis R. Patrick, Chairman, Republican
(Named a FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1983)
Mimi Weyforth Dawson, Republican
(Named a FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1986)
Patricia Diaz Dennis, Democrat
(Named a FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1986)
James H. Quello, Democrat
(Named a FCC commissioner by Richard M. Nixon in 1974)
The FCC vote was opposed by members of Congress who said the FCC had tried to "flout the will of Congress" and the decision was "wrongheaded, misguided and illogical.".[21] The decision drew political fire and tangling, where cooperation with Congress was at issue.[22] In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine,[23] but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.[24]
Fowler said in February 2009 that his work toward revoking the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan Administration had been a matter of principle (his belief that the Doctrine impinged upon the First Amendment), not partisanship. Fowler described the White House staff raising concerns, at a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the Big Three television networks and PBS in political discourse, that repealing the policy would be politically unwise. He described the staff's position as saying to Reagan:
“
The only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks—every day they would savage Ronald Reagan—is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it![25]
”
Instead, Reagan supported the effort and later vetoed the Democratic-controlled Congress's effort to make the doctrine law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
Basic doctrine[edit]
In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In 1986, the 99th Congress directed the FCC to examine alternatives to the Fairness Doctrine and to submit a report to Congress on the subject.[16]
In August 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the Court stated in their decision that they made "that determination without reaching the constitutional issue."[17] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:
“
The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.
”
At the 4-0 vote, Chairman Patrick said,
“
We seek to extend to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print media have enjoyed since our country's inception.[18]
”
Sitting commissioners at the time of the vote were:[19][20]
Dennis R. Patrick, Chairman, Republican
(Named a FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1983)
Mimi Weyforth Dawson, Republican
(Named a FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1986)
Patricia Diaz Dennis, Democrat
(Named a FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1986)
James H. Quello, Democrat
(Named a FCC commissioner by Richard M. Nixon in 1974)
The FCC vote was opposed by members of Congress who said the FCC had tried to "flout the will of Congress" and the decision was "wrongheaded, misguided and illogical.".[21] The decision drew political fire and tangling, where cooperation with Congress was at issue.[22] In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine,[23] but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.[24]
Fowler said in February 2009 that his work toward revoking the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan Administration had been a matter of principle (his belief that the Doctrine impinged upon the First Amendment), not partisanship. Fowler described the White House staff raising concerns, at a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the Big Three television networks and PBS in political discourse, that repealing the policy would be politically unwise. He described the staff's position as saying to Reagan:
“
The only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks—every day they would savage Ronald Reagan—is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it![25]
”
Instead, Reagan supported the effort and later vetoed the Democratic-controlled Congress's effort to make the doctrine law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
There you go again; when did I say ANYTHING about Affirmative Action you whiny lying buffoon.
Trump won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. He was not the most popular candidate, therefore his agenda isn't popular either.
No it wasn't. In fact, the last four years of Obama's term saw GDP growth breaking 3% in several quarters. Trump has yet to break 3% growth. GDP growth is down 0.6% since the tax cut passed. The market's down too. Oil prices are up. Interest rates are up. Wages have stagnated. The tax cut was supposed to produce the opposite and it didn't. How come?
1. I said the Dow is down for 2018. Year-to-date, the Dow is down as of today.
2. Gross numbers mean nothing; you need to look at % growth for the DOW. Since his inauguration, Trump has grown the Dow by 25%. Over the same period of time, Obama grew the Dow by 36%, and he did it entering office amid a recession. Trump was handed a thriving economy, and couldn't grow the Dow by more than Obama did, despite having all the advantages Obama didn't. #winning?
There was also $1.50/gallon gas during Obama too. Maybe you forgot about it, or maybe you're just deliberately omitting that because you want to look good on a message board. After all, your ego is all you care about.
Also, wasn't KXL supposed to lower oil prices? What happened there?
Pointing our your hypocrisy on the deficit isn't the same thing as complaining about the deficit. I personally don't care about deficits, and never have. I only care about how you try to use the deficit as a political tool when the fact is you don't give a shit about it either. Most of that $10T of deficit spending is your shitty War on Terror, your shitty Bush Tax Cuts, your shitty Medicare Part-D, and your shitty economic collapse thanks to your shitty deregulations.
So how come you were silent when Bush the Dumber erased a surplus and doubled the debt, screeched like a barnyard animal during Obama about the deficit and debt, and are now making excuses for Trump doubling the deficit and adding trillions in debt?
Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer to that hypocrisy. Cowards rarely do.
You couldn't beat your way out of a wet paper sack shit-for-brains. I just mopped the floor with your hair and you jumped up thinking you were winning. It is painfully obvious you lack the intelligence to argue with a grade school attendee.
Trump and followers were not even aware a National Healthcare system was complicated. I believe the POTUS said, "Who knew?" We will someday have universal healthcare like the rest of the civilized world. But until then we will have the most expensive, way down the list of efficient, but most profitable system possible.
I remember when we had the fairness doctrine. When a Dem got TV time, the opponents did too. It was not just the 2 parties, but Greens, Socialists and other parties got their face time. I found some quite informative.The concept was that the people owned the airwaves and all the people should have some input. The Repubs had bigger ideas and educating the people was not helpful. The even got the righty Supremes to back their agenda. It was a blow to freedom of the press and the first amendment.
Tax cuts reduce revenue which results in deficits. It's why Bush the Dumber erased a surplus, it's why Brownback created record deficits, and it's why Trump now has a $1T deficit.
So here's some math for you:
Trump's latest budget is $4T
Trump's deficit is $1T
Which means government is collecting about $3T in revenue
Of the $4T budget, about 85% is just Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and defense.
Another 5% is Interest on the debt.
That leaves about 10% for discretionary spending. Which is about $400B
So even if you cut all discretionary spending which would include things like the FBI, the CDC, and all federal courts, you're still running a $600B deficit -plus you're not making up for that loss of spending in the economy. You take demand out of the economy when you cut spending, and you replace it with nothing. Conservatives like to fantasize that the tax cuts will trickle down; it never happens.
So clearly we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.
I've just demonstrated how, through math, you can't cut your way to a balanced budget.
Wow. Yes, tax cuts cut revenue. When you cut taxes, you cut revenue. Sheesh. That's just math.
What a crybaby.
Bad news for you is that the current deficit is $1T, which is a $500B increase from what Obama left behind.
That increase is 100% because of the tax cuts.
So in other words, Trump won. He will set the agenda and you will keep bloviating like a dumbass because you're to stupid to know when to STFU.
Again; you can rant like a brain dead clueless lunatic all you want, but average GDP during the Obama Presidency was 1.5%. The rest of your screed is just whiny false bullshit not even worthy of a response because it has already been shown you're a lying lunatic.
You said it was down; and it doesn't matter how you want to parse it, it is 4,696 points higher than when Trump was inaugurated. That's UP no matter how you stupidly try to parse it like a lunatic.
There you go again with the laughably stupid arguments. The DOW is up 4,696 points. Stop crying.
Trump wasn't handed a thriving economy you lying dumbfuck; he was handed an economic malaise where leftist tried to argue this was the NEW world. Moron.
And yet, right now, Democrats in California tacked on another .15 cents a gallon; who do you think that will hurt? The rich?
Did KXL get completed? When?
That is rather ironic then watching you rant and whine about them now don't you think? Liar.
You're the idiot trying to use it as a political tool you moron. Were you born this stupid? Or do you work at it?
That is a flat out lie. What is it about you whiny lying liberals and you're propensity to be uneducated morons and liars?
That's easy; because he had to deal with 9-11 and fighting two wars. Of course, in idiot land where you wallow, wars are always fought with surpluses right? STFU you willful idiot.
The only whiny lying hypocrite in this debate is you. I suggest you buy a mirror and STFU before you remove any shred of a doubt what a moron you are.
Not what I said. You're sloppy and you're rushing through your responses.
What I said was that the Dow year to date has declined and that's because of the tax cuts, which took effect on the 1st of the year.
I also said that Obama grew the market faster and better than Trump did, with Trump growing it 25% from inauguration to May 10th of his second year, and Obama growing it 36% from inauguration to May 10th of his second year. It's not even close.
All you've done here is call me names and refuse to debate any topics. Then you get yourself all tangled in your own rhetoric; completely mixing up deficits and debt, forgetting things, and lying by omission. I get the sense that you're a very insecure person who has to lie to himself in order to just make it through the day. I don't really care about people like you, and I think we should just write you all off because you contribute nothing.
evince
Truthmatters
Reagan supported the effort and later vetoed the Democratic-controlled Congress's effort to make the doctrine law.
the Democratic Party controled congress at the time passed a law to make the fairness doctrine LAW
REAGAN VETOED IT
What I have an issue with is people like you cherry-picking and lying by omission for the sake of your ego on an anonymous message board.
There were periods during Obama where gas priced dropped to $1.50/gallon.
And also, because you're just vomiting out random gas prices, taken during unspecified times and in unspecified locations, you end up opening yourself up to a violent broadside attack on your belief system, and your debate style.
Trump promised that KXL would lower gas prices, yet gas prices have only climbed during Trump's presidency. Explain.
??? So I think you had a stroke when you typed this because it makes no sense.
With all the straw men you're constructing, someone better have an extinguisher nearby in case they catch fire from your pants.
No they don't; and if you had a brain and made a little effort to look at the historic record, you would find that after EVERY tax cut, there has been a corresponding increase in revenue. That's a sinple FACT, not hyperbole or the whiny buffoonish uninformed ranting you engage in.
FACT; the Federal Government fiscal year runs from October 1 of the budget's prior year through September 30. We are only in the second quarter.
FACT; Total projected spending for fiscal year ending Sept 2018 is $4.268 trillion. The revenue estimate is $3.916 trillion. That equates to an estimated deficit of $352 billion.
Again that is a moronic claim; revenues always increase. But the spending increases faster than the revenue increase; that indicates a SPENDING problem you math and fact challenged moron.
I don't know who made the argument about cutting your way to a balanced budget. You just make up shit as you go don't you snowflake. What I can say is that you can't get there by raising taxes because the spending is the problem. You get there by promoting economic growth; which leads to fewer people on unemployment rolls, fewer on welfare rolls and more people employed which equals more tax payers, which means more revenue.
I know that is a difficult concept for clueless uneducated Marxist morons to comprehend and it requires some thought which you show a propensity to avoid.
And yet, after every tax cut we have had big increases in revenue. That's a FACT not fantasy like your bloviating is. The reason was described above; read it and become more economically informed.
Yes you are; but that is what happens to whiny lying leftists when they get schooled on how stupid they look.
Bad news for you is you're still a clueless idiot on steroids.
No it isn't; but then, you're a whiny clueless idiot on steroids.