We need Socialism. Socialism Is A Good Thing. Socialism Promotes The General Welfare.

[Frank Apisa]

we have to get back to agreeing on what is a fact


which means killing the propaganda founts like Fox "news"

Ummm...

...careful there.

Bad thinking.

I am no more interested in anyone "killing" FOX "news" than I am in anyone killing CNN, MSNBC, PBS News Hour, The NY Times or The Washington Post.

[evince]

then you are foolish

Fox is not news

its propaganda


they spew lies and were reporting the fake Russian news as real stories during the election

we can no longer allow liars to call themselves news


we didn't used to

[evince]

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.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Nifty,

The wealthy right wingers are looking out for their best interests.
The poor ones are fucking stupid and enjoy shooting their own toes off, just to keep "niggers" and "spicks" in their place (using their words).
You're living a pipedream, PoliTalker, even though your intentions are good.

I am not the first person, nor shall I be the last, to face daunting challenges.

Can I be the one to make a difference? Are there more who feel like me? I can't do it alone. Should I try at all?

You never know what you can do until you try.

One thing is for sure.

You won't find out if you don't try.

If I am all alone, maybe after time, another will join me.

And then another.

And so on until this dark blot of an era on our history is complete; and we begin to learn how to work together and make democracy work. I guess democracy is sort of a do-it-yourself project, eh?

I have the luxury of lots of time.

And I can learn things.

Those two qualities do distinguish me, I realize.

So be it.

[evince]

Reagan supported the effort and later vetoed the Democratic-controlled Congress's effort to make the doctrine law

[evince]

Hello Nifty,



I am not the first person, nor shall I be the last, to face daunting challenges.

Can I be the one to make a difference? Are there more who feel like me? I can't do it alone. Should I try at all?

You never know what you can do until you try.

One thing is for sure.

You won't find out if you don't try.

If I am all alone, maybe after time, another will join me.

And then another.

And so on until this dark blot of an era on our history is complete; and we begin to learn how to work together and make democracy work. I guess democracy is sort of a do-it-yourself project, eh?

I have the luxury of lots of time.

And I can learn things.

Those two qualities do distinguish me, I realize.

So be it.

if we cant agree on what is a fact we cant work together as a nation


First we have to silence the liars

[PoliTalker]

Hello Frank,

Ummm...

...careful there.

Bad thinking.

I am no more interested in anyone "killing" FOX "news" than I am in anyone killing CNN, MSNBC, PBS News Hour, The NY Times or The Washington Post.

Let there be PLENTY of information. Don't limit the free press.

Let there be PLENTY of well informed and very smart Americans who can recognize propaganda for what it is.

[PoliTalker]

Hello evince,

if we cant agree on what is a fact we cant work together as a nation


First we have to silence the liars

I disagree. Let the lies flow. Let the people be wise enough to see right through them.

I support having a free press.

As soon as you take that right away, take away free press, you give Trump the power to shut down CNN, NPR, etc.

[evince]

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.

policing the news and revoking the licenses of those who kept lying after being warned


the Democratic party backed it


the Republicans party killed it


then they started fox "news"

[evince]

Hello evince,



I disagree. Let the lies flow. Let the people be wise enough to see right through them.

I support having a free press.

As soon as you take that right away, take away free press, you give Trump the power to shut down CNN, NPR, etc.

free to LIE?

we used to do it


then the republicans killed it so Ailes and Nixons plan of a right wing news station became fact

[PoliTalker]

Don't try to silence the liars.
That is the wrong way to approach it.
Drown the lies out with the truth.
Speak truth to power.

Love is the only way.

Hate just gets more hate.

[evince]

Fox should NOT EXIST


a station should not be able to label themselves news and air lies


they didn't used to be able to do that

[evince]

Don't try to silence the liars.
That is the wrong way to approach it.
Drown the lies out with the truth.
Speak truth to power.

Love is the only way.

Hate just gets more hate.

did you read about the fairness doctrine information I gave you?

[evince]

they can broadcast their lies


they just cant call what they do NEWS

[evince]

It was placed into doctrine in 1949


the American people saw what Nazi propaganda did to the german peoples minds


so Americans set up a system to make it impossible in this nation


it worked GREAT for decades

then the republican party killed it with Reagans help