Originally Posted By Mr X ***I have no problem with them not showing it, but I feel that ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX should all take turns carrying the President. That way everybody who wanted to could watch it. I actually think it makes good business sense if your competition is all carrying the same show, why not give viewers another option.*** I think this is a fantastic idea. Some sort of rotation system works great, so long as the other stations include a crawl which mentions the President is speaking and which station to turn to if you wish. When I was a kid, I can tell ya I hated NOONE more than Jimmy Carter (I didn't even know what "President" meant, really, all I knew was that jerk kept coming on TV and usurping all my shows and ruining so many carefree nights with his gloomy demeanor).
Originally Posted By ecdc And that's the thing. Words have actual meanings. Brainwashing, socialism, tyranny - these words have actual definitions and socially agreed upon meanings. For conservatives to just keep ignorantly using them because they don't like what the President does is absurd, and in the case of the noise machine trying to drum up ratings, disingenuous. I wonder how well it would go over if I just kept saying "Republicans are fascists. They are raping our country. They use religion to brainwash people." Words like Fascism, rape, and brainwashing mean stuff! I can't just attach them to the Republican party because I don't like them. Obama makes a speech and it's brainwashing. Give me a bloody break.
Originally Posted By mawnck Just for the record - NBC wasn't going to show it either until the White House moved the start time from 9 PM to 8 PM. Let's see, future of health care in America, or interview with Susan Boyle. Decisions, decisions ...... <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/susan-boyle-trumps-barack-obama-in-tv-network-politics.html" target="_blank">http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...ics.html</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck One other point ... >>I feel that ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX should all take turns carrying the President. That way everybody who wanted to could watch it.<< Nope. There are a lot of people in the US who don't get all four networks. Particularly after the digital transition.
Originally Posted By DAR ^^^ Well why not the government was providing coupons. Shoot if people can't take care of getting a converter box how are they get to their doctor appointments.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Well why not the government was providing coupons.<< Nothing to do with it. Seems the FCC's computer models vastly overrated the coverage ability of digital VHF signals on indoor antennas, and dozens of major market stations are now scrambling to get approval for power increases, moves back to UHF or even fire up second transmitters. There are also the folks in the boonies who lost some of their marginal but watchable analog signals (Hi there, San Bernardino!), and also small markets that don't have a full complement of affiliates in the first place. >>Obama is on FOX right now. << They're saying good things, I hope. :-D
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Seems the FCC's computer models vastly overrated the coverage ability of digital VHF signals on indoor antennas<< A report being overly optimistic, thereby greatly underestimating the amount of work that needs to be done? I find that hard to believe.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Ok...so, I watched it. Who can tell me what the plan is? Who can tell me how much the plan will cost? Who can tell me who is paying for the plan? Who can tell me who is actually putting the plan together and taking the lead on this? But, I will admit I was wrong. The President DID make some news last night but, unfortunately, not in regards to healthcare. While admitting he does not have all the facts about his friend arrested in Cambridge for "breaking into his own home"...he feels reasonably comfortable to say the police acted stupidly. I wish I had my crystal ball working as well these days. Now, there is a good chance the police DID act stupidly but there is also a good chance the professor got mouthy and pushed things toward the confrontation that followed. Either way, the President certainly doesn't know.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Now, there is a good chance the police DID act stupidly but there is also a good chance the professor got mouthy and pushed things toward the confrontation that followed.*** The charges were dropped. You conveniently left that part out. As far as I'm aware, being "mouthy" in your own home isn't a crime (even to a cop who entered without permission afaik). The President was right to say what he said. "Ok...so, I watched it. Who can tell me what the plan is? Who can tell me how much the plan will cost? Who can tell me who is paying for the plan? Who can tell me who is actually putting the plan together and taking the lead on this?" <a href="http://www.healthreform.gov" target="_blank">http://www.healthreform.gov</a>
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I didn't "conveniently leave out" the fact that the charges were dropped. Of course they were. But, that doesn't mean that the Professor didn't do anything that warranted being handcuffed. I see it in my parks every day. Policeman walks up to a soccer player and tells the person the park is closed and he has to leave. Person says, "I'll leave in 15 minutes." Policeman says, "no I'm sorry...you have to leave now." Man says, "you are just harassing me because I'm Latino." Policeman says, "no, I'm asking you to leave because you are the only person left in the park and it is closing time." Man gets more upset and starts going off on policeman. Policeman arrests him for disorderly conduct. It isn't a far stretch. And, that is my point. Charges dropped or not, no one REALLY knows the story besides the police present and the professor. Certainly the President doesn't know all of the facts and to call the police actions "stupid" on national television makes him sound more like a talk show host and less like the President. As for the website you posted, boy...ain't that pretty? But, it has about as much meat as the speech did last night. I don't need to defend my thoughts on Obama. His problems now are more likely with his own party than with the Republicans.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I didn't "conveniently leave out" the fact that the charges were dropped. Of course they were.*** Then why didn't you mention it? And as to the rest (he needed to be handcuffed or whatever), he was arrested on particular charges. Why? They were later dropped. Why? You say "of course" the charges were dropped, but I don't understand why you think that's a matter of course. "Charges dropped or not, no one REALLY knows the story" No, it's NOT "charges dropped or not". Screw that. WHY were the charges dropped? If he were in fact breaking the law when he was arrested, why no follow through? If he was belligerent, and that's a crime, why not charge him and give him his day in court? I don't agree with your premise, that it somehow doesn't matter that they dropped the charges. To me, that is salient and vital to the situation. And, considering as much, I think the President said EXACTLY the right thing. Cops shouldn't have to "drop the charges", unless they acted stupidly (or can point to some other procedural screw up or something). Cop got pissed at belligerent black dude, "charged" him with something, hauled him in handcuffed for no reason...later drops charges. Nice. But what about the dude who got messed with? That's just all well and good? I don't buy it. ***As for the website you posted, boy...ain't that pretty? But, it has about as much meat as the speech did last night.*** There is a conveniently located "contact us" button you can make use of. I'm sure they can answer whatever questions you have about the sites shortcomings a lot better than I. That's assuming you are actually LOOKING for the information you seek, or simply using your perceived lack thereof as an excuse to complain. If you contact them and ask your questions honestly, and they can't adequately reply to your queries, please chime in here again with copies of the correspondence and I'll happily admit that you were right and I was wrong.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Wow...you are reading a lot into it. I meant "of course" as in....I read the reports. I know the charges were dropped. Why were they dropped? I'd assume that the Cambridge police didn't want to deal with the national spotlight on this but I have no idea. But, I'm not taking issue with the Professors actions or the cops actions. I'm taking issue with Obama's actions last night and, in particular, his comments about the police being "stupid." I admit I don't know the facts of the case. Neither does he. What did the major morning news shows lead off with today? The 35 minutes he spent on healthcare? No. They led with the 35 second "stupid" response. As for the website. I'll email them right now and let you know what I find out...assuming I get a detailed response. But again, I contend Obama is going to have to worry about selling this to his own party first. He is worried, as he is already moving on his August deadline.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Ok...so, I watched it. Who can tell me what the plan is? Who can tell me how much the plan will cost? Who can tell me who is paying for the plan? Who can tell me who is actually putting the plan together and taking the lead on this? >> I think the President was very clear on what the cost of doing nothing would be and who would be paying the bill for inaction. He had some very specific figures on what it will cost the country if we continue to do nothing and let the profit driven health insurance industry continue to run health care. Congress is responsible for getting the details together on a health care reform plan for the President to sign.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, I have two choices via the "contact us" button. I can send in a canned, "I support you" response or I can send stories on why I think healthcare needs to be reformed this year. I'll try asking my questions via the second option...but I'm not holding my breath on a response.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Sport...you are right. He did stipulate the costs for doing nothing. He didn't tell us the cost for doing something, what that something might be, etc. Of course, he didn't rule out taxing millionaires to pay for it. I'm not opposed to healthcare reform. In fact, I strongly encourage it. I'm fortunate to have a decent plan right now but there are no guarantees I don't lose it tomorrow and there are certainly no guarantees for our kids. What I AM opposed to is the President's continual use of the strategy, "I have a plan...I can't share the details...but trust me anyway." I don't want this to be rushed and pushed through. I'll give the administration a chance if he gets his own folks on board.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Why were they dropped? I'd assume that the Cambridge police didn't want to deal with the national spotlight on this but I have no idea.*** If you have no idea, then why would you make such a bold assumption? And further, if the Cambridge police were correct and the guy acted in a criminal fashion, why should they let him get away with it just because national attention has been drawn to it? Is the law really so unjust? I doubt it, myself, but perhaps you believe police bow to pressure and convenience a lot?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I admit I don't know the facts of the case. Neither does he.*** Another bold assumption. I'm pretty sure that the President knows whatever facts he wishes to know in any case of criminal activity in the United States. Perhaps he simply said "we don't know all the facts" to stipulate to the notion that not all was public knowledge...but I hardly think he would be lacking factual knowledge if he were in fact being updated on the case (he probably knows more than anyone else, honestly).
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I'll try asking my questions via the second option...but I'm not holding my breath on a response. >> So, from your previous post I gather your questions are: 1) Who can tell me what the plan is? - Did you ever wonder what the plan was to take over Iraq? Did you ask this question 7 years ago? 2) Who can tell me how much the plan will cost? - Did you ask how much the war in Iraq would cost before we authorized force there? What answer did you get? Were you satisfied with the costs there? (Health care reform won't cost even half what the war in Iraq costs) 3) Who can tell me who is paying for the plan? - Did you ask who was paying the trillion dollar bill for the Iraq war? Are you happy with all of the off-budget appropriations for this war? 4) Who can tell me who is actually putting the plan together and taking the lead on this? - Did you ask the same question for the strategy in Iraq? Of course there is a DOD element, but what about the post-conflict strategy? Who is the overall lead for economic, civil, and military reconciliation in the country? I presume you had all those questions answered 8 years ago? How about the tax cuts? Did you ask the same questions about who was paying for the tax cuts on the wealthy when they were enacted? You know, the Congressional Budget Office just released a report that says health care reform would increase the deficit by $239B over ten years. Wow, that's a big figure! Until you compare it to figures in other government programs. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the 10 year expenditures for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing compared to forthcoming costs for Social Security and Medicare. We just dropped nearly $1T into the pocketbooks of Wall Street bankers! And we're worried about $20 or so billion dollars a year for a health benefit that will greatly improve the lives of all Americans? You have to be kidding. Let's throw more money at Wall Street and see how many sick people get healed that way.
