Is this really what we have to look forward to?

[martymoose]

Re: Is this really what we have to look forward to?

kc11, mm, joco, any other of the Obama butt boys.....

Obama won, Mccain lost, insults won't change that...move on.

[WuDrWu]

You're right, I've said that, and that's why I am bringing up this issue that he is talking about.

Care to "nah nah de boo boo" some more or defend the (failed) policy?


Address the problem.

[dregn]

The problem lies that government mandated that stations change how they broadcast and if they are going to do that they should subsidize the switch. What gives the government the right to change how people watch TV?

At the same time if we use TV to communicate emergency messages (I know it's a cold war era relic, but they still use it) people should be provided access.

I know about half a dozen people without cable or dish. You start going to places like Mississippi, New Orleans and other areas in the south along with the Appalachians or in the NW (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming) and the % starts to increase. I've had a few friends from those areas of the country and they don't view cable as a neccessity like so many of us do.

In my eyes this is a change that the Obama administration was stuck with and they are going to try their best to do it right and do what the government had promised it would do 4 years ago. The government following through on their promises would be a novel concept.

Ron Paul in 2012!

[ShockBand]

Not that I favor extending the deadline, because if you get caught unaware of the February 17th switch, you haven't been paying attention and that isn't anyone's fault but your own, but there are a couple of instances where people might get caught without a signal when they expect it:

1) This spring, when the first big nasty thunderstorm rolls through, you head for the basement, the power goes out, and you want to use your little handheld TV to try and keep up with the storm track. I've had a little handheld ever since May 3, 1999, when that tornado system rolled through my neighborhood, we had already lost power a half hour earlier, and I discovered that radio can't give you specifics about your location very well. They do make digital signal capable handhelds, but they're expensive and I'm not confident about their ability to maintain signal in a basement with a heavy storm in progress. Hopefully my cell phone signal would stay strong enough to keep me web connected for radar in such a case now!

B) This fall, when you're getting ready to enjoy your first tailgating of the season, and fire up that old TV in the parking lot only to find snow. Granted its not a critical concern, but it will make for many "oh @#$!" moments this fall to be sure.

[SpanglerFan316]

The same ones Obama wants and he's been talking about more of them. Bush was also stupid to give in!

Exactly, and that's what close minded libs don't get (not that they "get" anything in the first place). Conservatives are pissed at the fiscal irresponsibility of President Bush and have publically said so. Libs love the free spender and are rarely if ever going to question their leader. It was a mistake no matter who made the decision.

While BOTH parties are disgustingly sick when they politicize every issue, imho, conservatives are more likely to make up their minds based upon what they believe to be "right" and not what their leadership tells them to.....which defines each party. Conservatives believe the individuals can (and should) decide what's best for us, liberals are convinced the leaders are best equipped for these decisions.

Government should NEVER have been involved in this from the get go. Extending this FAILED issue and throwing more money at it simply is another perfect example of why we are where we are. All they need now is a few of their infamous million dollar toilet seats to sit on while they flush the rest of our money.

Failure, failure, failure. If you are supporting this, you really should have your head examined. Obviously it is not functioning properly.

"Conservatives" ran the country without opposition from 2001-2007 and are still in power (until Jan. 20, 2009). These "Conservatives" ran up a huge budget deficit, lied about WMDs, messed up FEMA, didn't prevent 9/11, etc. Anyone who blames "libs" is being dishonest. Let's not forget Jack Abramoff, the "great job" Henry Paulson has done ("Now where exactly did the money go, Secretary Paulson?"), cost overruns for the "war on terror," etc.

I love this quote: “I would like the next president not to talk about deficit reduction,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said at a symposium sponsored by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
(Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mr. McCain’s chief economic adviser and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us...4warcosts.html

[rrshock]

I think something else that could be thrown into the topic here is the people that were ready that have since lost their jobs and can't afford cable or satellite. What do they do then? That could happen to anyone.

I happen to have a couple of Digital TVs, but alot of people don't. And when the plug gets pulled on the dish or cable, they're up a creek without a paddle.

And from the other side of the argument, I volunteer my time as firefighter in a small town. Some of the airwaves that are going to be freed up will allow for emergency communications systems to expand and upgrade. So delaying this can cause problems in the future.

That's just my $.02 worth.

[BostonWu]

The same ones Obama wants and he's been talking about more of them. Bush was also stupid to give in!

Exactly, and that's what close minded libs don't get (not that they "get" anything in the first place). Conservatives are pissed at the fiscal irresponsibility of President Bush and have publically said so. Libs love the free spender and are rarely if ever going to question their leader. It was a mistake no matter who made the decision.

While BOTH parties are disgustingly sick when they politicize every issue, imho, conservatives are more likely to make up their minds based upon what they believe to be "right" and not what their leadership tells them to.....which defines each party. Conservatives believe the individuals can (and should) decide what's best for us, liberals are convinced the leaders are best equipped for these decisions.

Government should NEVER have been involved in this from the get go. Extending this FAILED issue and throwing more money at it simply is another perfect example of why we are where we are. All they need now is a few of their infamous million dollar toilet seats to sit on while they flush the rest of our money.

Failure, failure, failure. If you are supporting this, you really should have your head examined. Obviously it is not functioning properly.

"Conservatives" ran the country without opposition from 2001-2007 and are still in power (until Jan. 20, 2009). These "Conservatives" ran up a huge budget deficit, lied about WMDs, messed up FEMA, didn't prevent 9/11, etc. Anyone who blames "libs" is being dishonest. Let's not forget Jack Abramoff, the "great job" Henry Paulson has done ("Now where exactly did the money go, Secretary Paulson?"), cost overruns for the "war on terror," etc.

I love this quote: “I would like the next president not to talk about deficit reduction,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said at a symposium sponsored by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
(Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mr. McCain’s chief economic adviser and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us...4warcosts.html

Didn't prevent 9/11? Are you effin serious. You're talking 9 months following 8 years of bj's in the white house. Followed by another 8 years of no attacks.

[martymoose]

You're right, I've said that, and that's why I am bringing up this issue that he is talking about.

Care to "nah nah de boo boo" some more or defend the (failed) policy?


Address the problem.

Failed policy? Is Obama running the country yet? The only failed policy I've seen the last 8 years is from the Republicans. Now Obama gets to try and clean it up. Thank God McCain didn't win, or all those idiot McCain supporters who were here throughout the election season would have stuck around, it's unfortunate to see you've joined their ranks. Every time I see a new thread trying to poke at Obama or the people who voted for him, it just seems like more crying and it's really starting to get annoying. I really don't think you've realized the fact that McCain lost because he wasn't the best choice. America spoke and you lost. What’s the matter, can’t you post a thread without personal attacks? Is the election season all over again, with personal attacks and idiotic posting from Republicans? Go get a hanky and pout somewhere else. :cry:

[kcshocker11]

I fail to see what your worried about Doc!

[ShockBand]

The economic piledriver we've been experiencing and will continue to experience would still be doing all this right now regardless of whether we elected Obama, McCain, or the second coming of Adam Smith. As for what will happen over the next couple of years, well, for the Democrats its time to fish or cut bait! Pretty simple equation - if things are better and looking up come the fall of 2010, Blue will stay in power. If not, things could swing yet again.

[SpanglerFan316]

The same ones Obama wants and he's been talking about more of them. Bush was also stupid to give in!

Exactly, and that's what close minded libs don't get (not that they "get" anything in the first place). Conservatives are pissed at the fiscal irresponsibility of President Bush and have publically said so. Libs love the free spender and are rarely if ever going to question their leader. It was a mistake no matter who made the decision.

While BOTH parties are disgustingly sick when they politicize every issue, imho, conservatives are more likely to make up their minds based upon what they believe to be "right" and not what their leadership tells them to.....which defines each party. Conservatives believe the individuals can (and should) decide what's best for us, liberals are convinced the leaders are best equipped for these decisions.

Government should NEVER have been involved in this from the get go. Extending this FAILED issue and throwing more money at it simply is another perfect example of why we are where we are. All they need now is a few of their infamous million dollar toilet seats to sit on while they flush the rest of our money.

Failure, failure, failure. If you are supporting this, you really should have your head examined. Obviously it is not functioning properly.

"Conservatives" ran the country without opposition from 2001-2007 and are still in power (until Jan. 20, 2009). These "Conservatives" ran up a huge budget deficit, lied about WMDs, messed up FEMA, didn't prevent 9/11, etc. Anyone who blames "libs" is being dishonest. Let's not forget Jack Abramoff, the "great job" Henry Paulson has done ("Now where exactly did the money go, Secretary Paulson?"), cost overruns for the "war on terror," etc.

I love this quote: “I would like the next president not to talk about deficit reduction,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said at a symposium sponsored by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
(Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mr. McCain’s chief economic adviser and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us...4warcosts.html

Didn't prevent 9/11? Are you effin serious. You're talking 9 months following 8 years of bj's in the white house. Followed by another 8 years of no attacks.

Look at the 9/11 reports.

[SpanglerFan316]

The economic piledriver we've been experiencing and will continue to experience would still be doing all this right now regardless of whether we elected Obama, McCain, or the second coming of Adam Smith. As for what will happen over the next couple of years, well, for the Democrats its time to fish or cut bait! Pretty simple equation - if things are better and looking up come the fall of 2010, Blue will stay in power. If not, things could swing yet again.

I agree that the Democrats have to produce but Bush and company (including many Democrats) have dug a deep enough hole that 2010 is too soon to expect substantial improvement. Do you really expect the stock market to be above 12,000 in 12 months? I don't. Above 10,000? I doubt it.
Oct. 9, 2007 - Dow closes at 14164 - new 2007 and all time high http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/us-jpn98.html

The economic momentum is all down and even the best decisions in the world will not turn this around immediately.

[ShockBand]

Well, we're talking more like 18 months till the election season of 2010 is in full swing, and agreed it isn't necessarily fair, but its the way our electorate tends to work. BTW, I don't think the DJIA is necessarily the best indicator of whether or not we're in recovery. Wall Street is as insulated about the real world as those inside the Beltway. A regular Joe like me is more likely to pay attention to whether or not there is job growth, and more to the point, whether I'm personally better off or not in 2010 than in 2008. Again not necessarily fair, but reality, IMHO.

[SpanglerFan316]

It is hard to disagree with your comments on the nature of politics.

For the "bashers," I see no problem bashing Clinton & Bush. Bashing Obama before he even comes into office is a little petty and silly.

ADDED: Is the number in here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7822223.stm (i.e. "could create 4m jobs") reasonable or unreasonable in your opinions?

Rather than bash people, maybe we could discuss the pros and cons of Obama's plan? Tax cuts - good or bad? Support for the states - good or bad? More Federal R&D - good or bad? Direct Federal employment - good or bad? What do we need? What do you want to see done?

[JohnnieBallgame]

I will give Obama the same amount of respect the dems gave President Bush. Their hatred of him has driven me to not have any respect for them. It used to be that political adversaries could disagree without being disagreeable but those days are gone. We all used to want what was best for our country but disagreed how to get there...those days are gone. Obama was not properly vetted, he is an empty suit socialist. I do not want him to have a successful presidency...I want him to fail miserably so the country will survive. I want government off my back and out of my pocket. I'm tired of anyone disagreeing with Obama being called racist. I have no problem with the color of his skin, just the content of his character and the people he has chosen to be affiliated with. I am a registered republican who is not proud of the way President Bush lost his veto pen regarding spending bills from republicans early on and from the dems the last few years. Be forewarned, when Obama gets into my pocket, my least productive employees will go away they are likely the same voters who voted for him judging by bumperstickers on autos. I will then take the time I spend babysitting them and figure out how to beat little Barry at his own game.