...That's what he said in a 1980 debate with Poppy Bush.  Reagan wanted Mexican workers to come here with work permits and pay taxes because he said there was 40-50% (?) unemployment in Mexico and he was afraid of the turmoil that would cause in a country on our border.

Bush said illegals should be treated exactly the same as their legal neighbors.  Bush didn't want illegals to feel as though they were outside the law because they were "good, strong people."

Maybe that's why Obama is more popular than Reagan.  The Dems don't like Reagan and Republicans have become foaming at the mouth haters.  Today's GOP would tar and feather Reagan and Bush for making those statements.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixi9_cciy8w

'Worst President Ever!'  

if I remember correctly, Reagan took responsibility for Iran –Contra in mid 1987, and I imagine his poll numbers dived.

         On the other hand, Reagan did not have a  TV channel dedicated to trashing his every decision.  I wonder how much these polls are affected by Fox viewership and right wing talk radio.

From what I've read, all TV channels were trashing Reagan at the beginning of his  
Presidency.
  I don't watch Fox but I'd rather have a choice to watch right wing propaganda to get an  opposing view, than TV and radio comprised entirely of  left wing media.
 
There's a poll on President Obama today, on left wing www.msn.com.
  Hurry and vote before it gets  worse.  
   
 "Is the United States better off since Barack Obama became president?
 
 Yes, better off            29%
 About the same         11%
 No, things are worse  57%  
 I’m not sure              3%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx
 

until the very end of Reagan’s presidency. Licensed broadcasters were REQUIRED to provide the opposite point of view. There was also the personal attack rule which required licensed broadcasters to notify persons subject to a personal attack, provide the transcript, and give them the opportunity to respond.

   So, no, your reading/memory is faulty- Reagan was not savaged by the broadcast press even remotely similar to the Obama criticism. In fact, some of his staff members opposed repeal of the Fairness Doctrine for the very reason that he would be savaged.

      The Bill O’reilly Show, for example, could not have existed in its present form under the Fairness Doctrine. Remember when OReilly was caught telling all those blatant lies about his street creed by David Corn and Mother Jones?  O’Reilly did a talking points calling Corn a liar and  all sorts of names. Then he had “media critic” Bernie Goldberg on to agree with him on all points.  OReilly also savaged other media critics who came out against him. Corn and the others never got to respond on the network, as far as I know. That would have caused Fox to lose its license back in the 80s.

         Now  a typical Bill O show, for example,  has Bill blasting the Iran Agreement and Obama’s leadership. Then he has  Charles Krauthammer (who has lost all credibility as a political commentator bc of his bias) as his first guest who savages Obama even worse. Then he brings on Bernie again who agrees with 99% of what both said. There were many shows with no opposing view whatsoever.

       So the termination of the Fairness Doctrine gave rise to Fox and Rush (as well as left wing shows but they don’t have the viewership.)  I opine that these shows have to play a major role in these approval polls

that's fucking funny

If Krauthammer wasn't "biased" he wouldn't be breathing. ALL human beings are "biased", Mari.  ALL OF THEM.

And tell me about the "unfairness doctrine" when ABC, NBC, CBS, etc for decades only got the views of N.O.W. when there was a "womens issues" that made the news that day.  

If you read Bernies book "Bias" you would have learned that NONE of the networks ever asked C.W.A.'s opinion on the matter. And since you proly don't know who they are, they are the Concerned Women for America, which is the conservative  women's group vs. the liberal N.O.W.

Problem is, not only didn't they contact CWA for a response, they never bothered to tell the viewer that NOW was liberal!

So they didn't need to get the "opposing view" because they didn't think an opposing view existed as all women have the same opinion, right Mari? LOL

THERE'S your fairness doctrine for you. Now considered yourself educated.

Crack a book, son. LO

END OF MESSAGE

bullshit

I had front row seats to how the press treated the Reagans

when RR was President there was only one side presented, ever.  Reagan and Nancy were savaged by the press daily.  Their opposition to everything RR stood for and proposed made his many accomplishments all the more impressive

until Rush and Fox, conservative views, those of most of the nation, were rarely represented and, if they were, is was only to be ridiculed by the press

the obvious liberal slant and lack of the basic fairness of the press, despite their great constitutional responsibility left me with great skepticism of anything that they report.  once you stop drinking the MSM Kool-Ade your eyes open to all sides of the story.

I now read the WSJ, WaPo daily and other mags, I watch Fox, MSM and CNN to see how each handle major stories.  once in a while I'll drop by MSNBC to see what the kooks are saying and to charitably double their viewership

The "Fairness Doctrine" is another lib title that means exactly the opposite of what you think. Kinda like "choice" where the baby to be snuffed has none.  

To them it is but another clever tool to limit the speech of those with whom they disagree

today's MSM covers up all of Obama's scandals and fuck-ups and did a shitty job of vetting him in the first place.  without Fox, we would only hear one side of the story - and that's what libs so desperately want

were violating the Fairness Doctrine by not presenting their point of view?

      Let me guess – the answer is "no," or else the FCC would have taken action. And if they did complain and the  FCC did nothing, your group could have gone to court? Did they do that?  

      Let me guess – the answer is “no,” or we would have court cases on this. You can’t suffer in silence, Jack, although sometimes I do when I read your posts – you’ve got to pipe up. (No, not you, you pipe up enough – I meant your mousy and submissive women’s group).

     So there you have it – leaving aside the total irrelevancy of your post to the one preceeding it, your complaint is not with the Fairness Doctrine but with an advocacy group too scared to advocate

...so there may be hope for you yet!  

Now, Mr Flintsone, can I welcome you out of the Stone Age by noting that the unfairness doctrine is dead and buried with no one but maybe the kids at Kos and the Communist party of America ever really talking of bringing it back? LOL

You made more sense when you said I was placing myself in MORE legal jeopardy by haggling with hookers and you made ZERO sense with that gibberish.  

And btw, GaG wants to discuss your Rick Perry epic fail. Take him off ignore and you can discuss with him. LOL!!!!!

And criticizing the president’s policies by license holders is permissible under the Fairness Doctrine, so long as the opposing point of view is also presented. Since you had “front row seats,” I’m sure you remember the coverage on the networks given to  Larry Speakes, Jim Brady, David Stockman, Ed Meese, Al Haig, Don Regan, Jim Baker, Schultz, Cap….the list goes on and on. All advocates of his policies. Ollie North trial-broadcast live. And if Reagan himself wanted air time, I don’t ever recall the networks saying ….”not during Laverne and Shirley.”

 
    "when RR was President there was only one side presented, ever. "

Sounds like you were dozing in those "front row seats.

who self-describes as a “political commentator” like Krauthammer, and the bias that all individuals have. Even someone like Bill O’Reilly has a lot more credibility as a political commentator because he makes a fresh analysis of every issue, and does not always simply repeat the conservative line.

      As for GaGambler, I think you are wrong. I haven’t heard a peep out of him for months. Are you sure he is still around? But I did a detailed post about Gov Perry’s epic fall just last week in response to your post that should answer all questions.

       As to increasing your legal jeopardy by haggling with hookers, that is indeed true with respect to distinguishing yourself from the crowd when you discuss price in a batch of emails. Why? Because discounts for reviews is the indictable offense, and when LE sees your requests for discounts, they have probable cause to investigate why. If you are really interested, google “Desert Divas indictments.

I didn't post a poll on President Obama's popularity.  
     
  I posted  a poll from left wing www.msn.com  asking a specific question.  
  " Is the United States better off since Barack Obama became president?"  
     
  The poll is still there, on their home page. www.msn.com  
  It's likely too late for you to skew the results.  
     
  I dare say, they've had more replies than the  1200 telephone call polls,  
  you so often cite and hold as accurate.  
     
  Yes, better off 29%  
  About the same 10%  
  No, things are worse 58%  
  I’m not sure 3%  
     
  Total responses: 668,121 vote

No, "self exil"e, based on a "time out" misunderstanding. Talking about "comprehension"---------LMAO !

you are incapable of telling the truth - typical lib

neither man promoted open-borders

your post is perfect and predictable bullshit

You DO listen to me. Yayyyyy!!!! LOL

Krauthammer was a lib for ages, Mari and often takes to Obama's defense of things so please, now that I have outed you on your nonsensical b.s on bias, don't let me have to educate you on Krauthammer too. Haven't you been embarrassed enough already?

And for you to mention Rick Perry with a straight face, while ignoring GaG, makes you look not just like a fool, but an embattled one that cant own his own words. Its 4th and 96. Punt!  

Finally, Desert Divas is an agency, Mari. In many posts, I have stated I don't do agencies and I don't review but other that that, once again you are dead on accurate!  

I really don't expect you to know anything about haggling as your way off base comments on Bergdahl and the Iran deal would attest, so don't venture into areas, AGAIN, that you have zero knowledge of. But who can stop you? I can only hope to contain you.

Fact checking your crap is becoming a full time occupation. Don't be that guy.

Perhaps your memory/ reading  is selective based on your biased opinion, much like a famous broadcaster at the time of Reagan's Presidency, Dan Rather, a loyal left wing spokesperson.  
  .  
  I'll give you partial credit though you flunked the test.  
           Your rathering reply contains partial truth.    
  Like many laws today, the fact you willingly withhold, or you don't realize, the Fairness Doctrine was rarely enforced.  
   
   During Reagan's presidency our  country was shifting from a left wing monarchy controlling the media to a country with  open news sources with differing opinions.  
     
  If I'm not mistaken ABC, NBC and CBS were the three most popular choices for TV news during the Reagan presidency with Cable TV left wing news lagging far behind.  
  All three major  network anchors at the time were left wing.  
   
    The  Fairness Doctrine was designed to give opposing views to controversial issues.  
  When all three Networks slandered Reagan in unison the powers to be saw no controversy and the common man had no authority to question their bias with any chance of success.  
   
  Now that we have the choice to watch Fox views from  the right or CNN from  the left and thousands of other choices when print is included,  there is no need for another Fairness Doctrine.    
   
   "The Fairness Doctrine was neither strictly enforced nor widely applied.  
 From January 1980 through August 1987, the FCC received over 50,000  
 com-plaints of alleged Fairness Doctrine violations. The FCC dismissed the  
 vast majority of the charges. The Fairness Doctrine was primarily invoked to  
 restrict virulent racism and other use of the airwaves to intimidate and attack  
 persons and institutions. The FCC also used the doctrine in 1967 to require  
 broadcasters to give significant time to antismoking messages. It was almost  
 never used to enforce accountability for claims made in documentaries, no  
 matter how hard-hitting or speculative. Although the National Association of  
 Broadcasters (NAB) has reported several cases in which documentaries were  
 accused of violating the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC upheld  only one  
 complaint, later overturned in federal court."  
http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/fccs-fairness-doctrine.pdf

censorship is censorship, period

the press itself was anti-Reagan at the time, today the MSM press is little more than the PR arm of the DNC

spare me the revisionist history, naming a few Reagan s administration officials proves nothing other than you can google

once again, I call bullshit on both of your posts, you have no idea of what you speak or you are deliberately lying about what happened then.

you must have read HuffPo or Salon for their twisted version of that history

“I finally settled into a job at a large radio station. …I became aware of a concern which I previously barely known existed- the FCC..I can recall nervous conversations about what the FCC implications of broadcasting a particular report would be.”

         So you see, regardless of how many complaints were enforce, the Fairness Doctrine had a very potent deterrent effect on broadcasters – they adopted policies to avoid controversial issues and personal attacks. In fact, that was the very reason the FCC decided to repeal the policy – that it was working, but in the wrong way-

 
       “The F.C.C. general counsel, Diane S. Killory, said the inquiry that resulted in the 1985 report showed that the doctrine had caused many broadcasters to adopt policies ''under which they have shied away from covering controversial issues in news, documentaries and editorial advertisements.'' She added that these ''completely frustrate the goal of the doctrine to foster robust debate and diversity of views.''

 
       Even if the FCC ultimately determined that a Fairness Doctrine complaint should be dismissed, the broadcast license holder incurred the cost of defending before the agency and, if appealed to court, before the court.  So it chilled their coverage. The 1985 report concludes “the record is replete with descriptions from broadcasters who have candidly recounted specific instances in which they decided not to air controversial matters….” because of the Fairness Doctrine.

       So again I do believe the Fairness Doctrine restricted criticism and personal attacks on Reagan that otherwise would have been made. Mr. Obama, of course is fair game for whatever Fox wants to say

sunrise still surprises you!

what specifically are they saying that you object to?

fearless prediction - he won't answer