The year we lose our TV signals

Page 12 of 15  


Other than those in areas needing to hear tornado updates on tv I still fail to see why losing tv signal is any great loss. There's virtually nothing but crap on both regular AND paid programming and if you've got a computer and a way to dialup, you can get the news by reading it rather than listening to some bimbo telling you 24 hour *breaking news* updates about Anna Nicole Smith or OJ Simpson.
If it were up to me the only time our tv would be on is to play and watch a DVD.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess you never heard of or watched The History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic, 60 Minutes, etc.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:
in

Add the Science Channel and History International and thats pretty much what we watch with the exception of 60 minutes which doesn't belong in that list since it is just another permutation of the "our interpretation of the news presented as news plus entertainment hour" type programs we absolutely don't watch.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 3, 6:04 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

That is about all I _do_ watch and 90% of that is either reruns or garbage. I figure I am lucky to find 1 or 2 programs a week that are both new AND worth watching. The history channel is getting very bad for running religious type subjects. 60 minutes at least is current.
Harry K
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
local over the air TV is critical when bad things happen like emergencies, tornadoes, hurricanes, or terrorism which we have been told will occur.
at such time the population needs timely asnd accurate information and direction.
========================================================== As to Bush about 20% of the population still beleves in him despite evidence to the contrary. which we are all well aware of:(
Perhaps these people who probably voted for bush in the first place, and likely saw their retirement accounts shrink by half are really trying to convince themselves that any president would of been as bad or worse......
so they support bush?
my belief is once bush is out of office we will be told the truth, he was hitting the bottle heavy in the white house, which would explain some of his bad performance
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 06:54:51 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

It has been an interesting thread. Mostly people with cable, a dish, and/or broadband complaining about have-nots complaining about the loss of (some) OTA TV. I have no wish to deprive anyone of their HDTV. But don't expect us (Luddites, frugal, etc.) to buy that TV isn't important to you when you are actually paying to get more of it than is available OTA. <g>
<...>
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The point here is that there WERE justifications. For example, Sadam only started partial cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors after 200,000 troops were stages and ready to invade. Even then, Hans Blix, in his final report, made it clear that Iraq was STILL NOT FULLY COOPERATING. So, sure, in post 911, it's not entirely unexpected for a president to tend to worry about what is really going on, what will happen when the troops are brought back and the shell game continues. And to take any intelligence in the most sinister view. Sadam sure acted like a guy hiding some secret WMD programs.
As I said before, what would have happened had Sadam had WMDs and later some of them were used? The libs would be demanding his impeachement, because there was adequate reason to act (see above), yet Bush did nothing. 20-20 hindsight is convenient, ain't it?
You can argue whether the justifications were sufficient to go to war. I don't know what I would have done, presented with the same intelligence and world scenario. But my main point here is that making a tough decsion with what info you had in the post 911 timeframe is very different than lying about going to war. If Bush was lying, I'd like to hear from hallerb, what exactly it was that Bill and Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Peolosi, Biden and many other Democrats who were relying on the same intelligence and making very similar statements about Iraq were doing. How is it they get a pass, while Bush is supposed to be a liar?

A baseless charge.
They come up with such gems as

Funny thing, after the invasion they didn't find WMDs. But they did find plenty of yellow cake uranium. So for all we know, it could very will indeed have come from Niger. No one every said for sure it didn't. Joe Wilson only said he couldn't confirm that it came from Niger. You really expect it to be that easy to confirm? Like he just goes over there and asks and gets an answer? So, after Sadam is removed it's found that Iraq did indeed have a HUGE STOCKPILE OF YELLOWCAKE URANIUM, and you want to bitch about whether intelligence was right about where it came from? You want a frigging receipt and pictures of it being shipped too?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334 /
Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada updated 6:57 p.m. ET, Sat., July. 5, 2008
"The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions."
George Tenet had to decide

Funny how those in Congress aren't accused of anything. Hallerb, are your there? Only Bush is supposed to be a liar. Actually, I think enough of them did look at intelligence that if they didn't like it, they had plenty of opportunity to spread the word and make their case. In fact, instead the majority voted to go to war.

Yep, he sure did.

Apparently you are interested in discussing it, otherwise you wouldn't have posted this, would you?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
saddam was exactly what that part of the world needed. brutal dictator who also happened to act as control rods for iran.
his claim of WMDs made perfect military sense it kept iran at bay.
when historians look back, if anyone is able to look back, bush will be resonsible for the coming world war begining in the mid east.
heck bush even managed to restart the cold war with russia
few presidents restart cold war, preside over a economic dump nearly as large as the great depression, go to war unnecessarily, plus dramatically erode our constitution, all in 8 years.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

The US intelligence provided to the inspectors did not lead to any finds. The inspectors wanted to continue the inspections. Delaying for inspections was tolerated only because of public and world opinion. The decision to invade had already been made (confirmed by British intelligence).
O'Neil and Clarke have said the decision to get rid of Sadam was effectively made shortly after 9-11. It was about projecting American influence (a neocon theme) and establishing a democratic country in the mideast (another neocon theme). (Shortly after, the democratic election in Gaza went to Hamas.) The Iraq war is the best thing that ever happened for Al Qaeda.
WMDs were the sales campaign to convince the public. It was at least the 3rd sales campaign - at least 2 failed.
The neocons that ran the DOD, the war, and the aftermath were ignorant about what would happen. The State department, which had only 1 high ranking neocon, had much different views on going to war and "nation building". But their extensive advice was ignored. Ironically, State was headed by an intelligent military person. (Watch the movie "No End in Sight" which interviews many major US players on the postwar.)

History. I believe one source is one of the "Frontlines".

The Niger story indicated *current* attempts at WMDs. US intelligence didn't believe the Niger story (except probably the DOD neocons).
It was removed from a Bush speech at the request of US intelligence.
It was later missed in the famous Bush state of the nation and subsequently retracted. The Bush speech cited intelligence from the UK - why? Writers didn't know about US intelligence? Maybe because the reference was technically correct - UK intelligence then believed the Niger story? (And Bill Clinton was technically correct when he said "I did not have sex with that woman" - according to definitions from a judge in a deposition just before.)

Congress is guilty of being stampeded into a war by administration propaganda. They made the mistake of trusting the Bush administration. Very few read the classified intelligence report that was available (maybe 5?).
The Iraq war removed intelligence and other "resources" from Afghanistan, where the real threat was. The predictable results of that diversion are now obvious.

I remember a couple of direct questions reported on the news, which few saw. But Bush speeches helped create the lie.

It has been debunked numerous times. Why do so many Americans still believe this?
Do you think maybe because of Bush (and other) speeches like: 9-11 9-11 9-11 Sadam 9-11 9-11
(Second last post.)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

NO WMDs were ever found. Just thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of bodies. When does hundreds of thousands of bodies cross the threshold into the classification of "mass" destruction? Does thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of bodies qualify as minor destruction. Some other adjective, perhaps?
Steve
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
unknown wrote this;

Steve wrote;

actually,over 500 chemical weapons have been found in Iraq. It's a big place.
And it's believed much WMD materiel was shipped to Syria.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The planes from the Air Force (not killed immediately) were found covered with sand. It takes awhile to find all that stuff.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

shall we go attack and kill any leader who muders their citizens? If so theres china, n korea, venezuela, and many other countries to take over.......
you volunteering to send you and your kids?
the trouble is the world looks at our country as the neighborhood bully, you think thats good?
know in advance we are goingn to see a lot of terrorism here...........
and perhaps for good reason
we shouldnt try to rule the world, heck currentl;y our country isnt running well...
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SteveB wrote:

That was one of the earlier sales campaigns for the war. It didn't work.
The bodies didn't seem to bother the US when Saddam was our more-or-less ally not all that many years ago (probably Reagan era until Iraq invaded Kuwait). Cheney, as head of Halliburton, had no problem doing business with Saddam after Kuwait. Saddam has been a murdering thug from the start.
(And the decision to get rid of Saddam a little after 9-11 wasn't based on WMDs or the earlier rationale, bodies.)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am convinced that he has been drinking throughout his Presidency.
The crime is that it was hidden from the American People.
TMT
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Too_Many_Tools:

Has anybody else seen the web page where somebody (obviously with an agenda...) put up videos of Dubya speaking as governor of Texas and then, some years later, as president?
The punch line was something like "What has happened to this guy?"
The differences in cadence, enunciation and other things I can't articulate were quite obvious.
--
PeteCresswell

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in

watched a great deal of deterioration over time in quality programming. In fact, the SciFi channel was commercial free and pretty good back then too. HC is still somewhat okay but all of the others now fall into my definition of crap.
It's not on the free tv selection anyway though so what has that to do with the lamentation of the loss of free tv, which is what the OP was speaking about:
quote:

My entire point was that the loss of free TV isn't enough to pay for programming one has to actually pay for anyway.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 3, 8:04 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

When did they start broadcasting those over the standard airwaves? Except fro 60 Minutes the others are only available on Cable or Sat. As for 60 Minutes, why do you watch a news program that has repeatedly been caught fabricating stories and lying?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
-snip-

I'll bite. I like 60 minutes. Can you give me 2 examples of each & I promise I'll reconsider watching it. [except for Andy Rooney- his is an opinion piece so he can say anything he damn well pleases. And besides he's an excellent woodworker and WWII war correspondent]
Jim
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

programming I'll only add that the OP can go here to see such shows without paying additional money for a converter box:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.