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 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.
On Jan 3, 6:04 am, firstname.lastname@example.org 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
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
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
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
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 06:54:51 -0800, email@example.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>
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?
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
Do you think maybe because of Bush (and other) speeches like:
(Second last post.)
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?
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
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
and perhaps for good reason
we shouldnt try to rule the world, heck currentl;y our country isnt
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
(And the decision to get rid of Saddam a little after 9-11 wasn't based
on WMDs or the earlier rationale, bodies.)
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
The differences in cadence, enunciation and other things I can't
articulate were quite obvious.
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:
My entire point was that the loss of free TV isn't enough to pay for
programming one has to actually pay for anyway.
On Jan 3, 8:04 am, firstname.lastname@example.org 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?
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]
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.