So it doesn't seem like this is as big as a deal as you're making it then.
Byron Allen Offers to Buy BET From Paramount Global for $3.5 Billion
- Thread starter LevelUp
- Start date
all the black men with black spouse's that create and promote negative black male stereotypes, sale lyrical poison and depicted black women as money hungy hoe's
your post is idiotic and coli militant simp dap fishing
Last edited:
Why did you say everything in this post but the time in American history where Byron Allen should have taken his case further? Ok, 2019 was not the right time for this case. What was, then?
Last edited:
Sir Richard Spirit
Superstar
So it doesn't seem like this is as big as a deal as you're making it then.
Seems like someone should have told him that.
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
If he buys it, I'll subscribe to BET+ for a year. 
He should’ve settled earlier and not taken it that far was the point. This is an awful time to bring any civil rights case to the US Supreme Court.
So y'all really just don't want to highlight when it would have been a good time to bring it to the Supreme Court?
Y'all just gonna keep talking around that?
Sit up here and say now is not the time and when someone asks when would have been the time and you don't have an answer timing no longer becomes an excuse for these sorry ass activists and pundits to not get behind the man.
Last edited:
Tribal Outkast
Veteran
The man got a full on media cooperation lol. Like I don’t know if he could do it, but he’s trying to buy these local tv stations from groups that are failing. People keep saying tv is dying/dead yet it’s always issues when Byron tries to buy them.. I wonder why.. Hell streaming ain’t doing too great either, but people don’t seem to want to talk about that though.
Last edited:
You just struggle with critical thinking. We are clearly rejecting your whole framing of the question and you can’t comprehend that rejecting your premise isn’t the same thing as dodging your question. It’s not a question of timing, it’s a question of what is the goal? If you’re doing something that harms the overall goal of anti discrimination then your tactics are wrong. A lot of you guys struggle to think for yourselves and are in search of heroes. I want him to own BET, and I think his tactics with the Comcast suit were wrong - those two things are not mutually exclusive. Just because you fail to comprehend nuance doesn’t mean the person explaining it to you is in the wrong.
IMO (I don't know shyt about cable TV) it's because BET is already a 2nd tier channel being broadcast. You don't have to worry about getting yourself listed and negotiating fees.If you've got that kind of money to spend on a network, why not just start one from the ground up? That way you start with a clean slate and can make your own mark. Only thing is, is getting an FCC license difficult/expensive? Is that why the price offered is so high?
It's kind of like how other channels have been bought out and rebranded; Speed TV I think turned into NBC Sports.
its damn near 2024Cable is a stable.
I literally watch like HBO and a few other things and I still have 1000 channels.
Never know when those 20 news channels, etc will come in handy
stated.. not in this timeline. maybe when Ruth was alive, when there is more balance. that's why his advisors told him it was a bad play. IN THIS TIMELINE.
further on this here...
Partisan balance[edit]
The simplest way to approximate the ideological leanings of Supreme Court justices is by the political party of the president who appointed them. In a 2000 paper, Segal, Timpone, and Howard found that, in their study area (civil liberties and economics cases from 1937 to 1994), presidents appear to be reasonably successful in extending their policy preferences by appointing like-minded justices to the court, though they found that justices appear to deviate over time away from the presidents who appointed them.[4] In 1999, Pinello conducted a meta-analysis of 84 studies of American courts covering 222,789 cases adjudicated since World War II and found that political party affiliation was a dependable indicator of rulings: Democratic judges voted in favor of liberal solutions more often than Republican judges did, especially in federal courts (the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeal, and U.S. District Courts).[5]The graph below (using data from List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States) shows the number of justices sitting in the Supreme Court who were appointed by Democratic or Republican presidents since 1936. In 1936, the Court had 7 justices appointed by Republican presidents and 2 appointed by Democratic presidents. Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt then filled the Supreme Court with 9 appointees in the late 1930s and 40s (including promoting Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, who had originally been appointed to the Court by Republican President Calvin Coolidge. Then Democratic President Harry S. Truman appointed 4 justices. In the 1950s, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower reversed the balance by appointing 5 justices to the court.
In the 1960s, Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, appointed 2 justices each, flipping the balance back to a majority of Democratic-appointed justices. This was reversed by Republican President Richard Nixon who appointed 4 justices, followed by Republican Presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush appointing a total of 7 more justices. (Democratic President Jimmy Carter was not able to appoint any justices in his single term). In succession, Democratic President Bill Clinton, Republican President George W. Bush, and then Democratic President Barack Obama each appointed 2 justices. Since 2020, with the appointment of 3 justices by Republican President Donald Trump, the Court has 6 justices appointed by Republican presidents. Democratic President Joe Biden has appointed 1 justice, but that appointment did not change the partisan balance. In every term since 1970, the Court majority (consisting of at least 5 of the justices) has been appointed by Republican presidents. Every chief justice since 1953 has also been appointed by Republican presidents.
Devins and Baum point out that before 2010, the Court never had clear ideological blocs that fell perfectly along party lines. In choosing their appointments, Presidents often focused more on friendship and political connections than on ideology. Republican presidents sometimes appointed liberals and Democratic presidents sometimes appointed conservatives. As a result, "... between 1790 and early 2010 there were only two decisions that the Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court designated as important and that had at least two dissenting votes in which the Justices divided along party lines, about one-half of one percent."[6]: 316 [7] Even in the turbulent 1960s and 1970s, Democratic and Republican elites tended to agree on some major issues, especially concerning civil rights and civil liberties—and so did the justices. But since 1991, ideology has been much more important in choosing justices—all Republican appointees have been committed conservatives and all Democratic appointees have been liberals.[6]: 331–344 As the more moderate Republican justices retired, the court has become more partisan. The Court is now divided sharply along partisan lines with justices appointed by Republican presidents taking increasingly conservative positions and those appointed by Democrats taking moderate liberal positions.[6]: 357
might get ownership of there old footage as wellIf you've got that kind of money to spend on a network, why not just start one from the ground up? That way you start with a clean slate and can make your own mark. Only thing is, is getting an FCC license difficult/expensive? Is that why the price offered is so high?
Whatupdoe?
Pro
I love how he approached it. The thinly veiled threat of lawsuit if they don't sell to the highest bidder. Go get it!
