voo doo economics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine


The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
 
yes the right in modern history have embraced the wealthy and racists since the southern strategy


we were on a path of more and more liberal voters and policy until the effect of right wing news


its not news


its republican created content designed to brainwash anyone who listens to it


that is why they had to SUE to be able to LIE to people


Its why the republicans ended the fairness doctrine


it was all planned by the wealthy right

Liberal voters who wanted lower taxes and more policing......two racist policies that most whites are for.
 
I remember the time before fox noise as well. As a Black person...…...it hasn't changed much.

You probably didn't hear about what was happening to Blacks so it may have seem all was well in you're eyes.

If you can remember back in the 60s' 70's and 80's it wasn't a good time for Blacks.

and we are still not there

it was just getting there faster for a moment in time


which is why they created Fox
 
Every time you make a demand then back down when offered the opportunity to back it up, you look just like a coward.

You made the demand. Stand behind it, boy. We both know you're not man enough and you just admitted that fact. It's easy to understand why.

Dude this is the internet! So why run your mouth making threats?

Is that why you call Black people "Niggers"? Because you are hiding behind a keyboard?

That's pretty chickenshit in itself, because you don't have the guts to say that in person to a "Black" man!

So you hide and say it, without the risk of someone stomping your ass to the curb!
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine


The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.

Now I know for sure you're retarded. WTF does the FCC have to do with economics?
 
Liberal voters who wanted lower taxes and more policing......two racist policies that most whites are for.

what Im trying to tell you is more white people will be miore fair when they have the truth


they had the truth kept from them



its harder and harder to divide us with the internets and news dedicated to the facts.


white people are just people just like any other people


we are not more inherently evil


if you believe they are you are committing the same crime both of us hate which is racism
 
what Im trying to tell you is more white people will be miore fair when they have the truth


they had the truth kept from them



its harder and harder to divide us with the internets and news dedicated to the facts.


white people are just people just like any other people


we are not more inherently evil


if you believe they are you are committing the same crime both of us hate which is racism

You really, really don't get white people.
 
Obama promised to buy a Volt and told people they could keep their doctor is they liked their doctor.

He did?

When did he promise to buy a Volt?

And you could keep your doctor, so long as you enrolled in an insurance plan your doctor accepted.

So if you didn't get to keep your doctor, that's not on Obama...that's on you for being too lazy to get a new insurance plan.
 
How is it that Ford can rearrange it's production plans to meet changes and GM can't?

LOL! Because you bought into propaganda, as usual:

Morgan Stanley Predicts Ford to Cut 25,000 Jobs in Overhaul
December 3rd, 2018
Ford Motor Co.’s $11 billion restructuring could cost 25,000 employees their jobs, exceeding the cutbacks General Motors Co. announced last week, according to Morgan Stanley.
Ford’s 70,000 salaried employees have been told they face unspecified job losses by the middle of next year as the automaker works through an “organizational redesign” aimed at creating a white-collar workforce “designed for speed,” according to Karen Hampton, a spokeswoman.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...icts-ford-to-cut-25-000-jobs-in-restructuring

Kill yourself.
 
Ironic isn't it! Cutting taxes on corporations, which lower tax incomes, which go to fixing the lot of the poor and middle class, who are the people Trump said he would help.

Lower tax incomes from job cuts of middle class workers, fixes the lot of the poor and middle class, how?
 
No program that takes from a producer and gives to a worthless, lazy piece of shit that won't do anything is a good program.

Says the guy on SSDI.


f they have a job, they don't need someone else's money.

So here's the cognitive dissonance: You screech about welfare spending, but then oppose raising wages which would reduce welfare spending.

You're just a backwards, inbred moron.
 
If they don't like their pay, improve their skills.

How so? By going to college? By getting training?

How are they supposed to do that if they can't afford it? You want them to borrow? How do you improve your skills without spending money training or getting educated?
 
Back
Top