Oren wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:11:58 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

Which one, the one he got fired for or the one which vaulted him into
the national limelight to begin with? Rather got his big break onto
the national scene when he reported on race riots in Houston in the
late 60's.

Dan Rather gained fame covering the JFK assassination, (walked a few
blocks to file a report) not some trivial riot in Texas that made him
famous. He is a Texan.

Hmm. There has been only one race riot in Texas in modern times - at Texas
Southern University (1967). JFK was assassinated in 1963. Rather joined CBS
in 1962.

No, Rather's initial fame took place when he was virtually the only reporter
on the scene to cover Hurricane Carla in 1961.

HeyBub wrote:
George wrote:
As for seeing the economic growth today, well, 72 consecutive months
of economic growth ain't nuthin' to sneeze at. Then the Democrats
took control of Congress. In a mere 18 months, they managed to ****
it up beyond the abilities of mere mortals to comprehend.


You keep repeating that but since you and Rush Limbaw only seem to
know what they did why not spill the beans and make them look really
bad? How about the real dirt on what they did in those 18 months?

What difference does it make whether or what they did? They were in charge,
therefore they get the blame.

Inasmuch as the economy's in the ditch, it's obvious they DIDN'T do anything
(enough?) to mitigate the disaster.

Frankly, I'm at a loss. Used to be, Republican scandals were concentrated
above the neck and Democrat scandals were centered below the belt. Now, what
with Larry Craig tap-dancing in the men's room and Chris Dodd, Barney Frank,
Rod Blago, and others fiddling with the money and power, it seems as if the
emphasis has shifted.


You are at a loss because everything Rush Limbaw told you just doesn't
seem to be working out. The reality is both red and blue work together
to protect their owners as has been demonstrated. Critically analyze
what limbaw tells you instead of just being a "believer" and prove me
wrong.

wrote:
On Jan 3, 2:14 pm, bud-- wrote:
wrote:

And BTW, I'm sick and tired of guys like you claiming Bush lied about
Iraq. He didn't lie, but you are. At the time Bush made the
decision to go to war, most of the Democrats were spouting the same
lines about WMDs.
The Bush administration was filled with neocons that wanted to "get"
Sadam since a little after the Gulf War (example Project for the New
American Century). The decision to "get" Sadam was virtually made just
after 9-11 (source Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neil and National
Security Adviser Richard Clarke). The administration threw up a series
of justifications, none of which worked. Until they got to WMDs.

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.

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.)

Because the traditional intelligence agencies weren't producing the
answers that were desired, a lot of 'intelligence' was moved into the
DOD under the control of the neocons.

A baseless charge.

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

They come up with such gems as
"curveball" and "yellowcake from Niger", both of which had been
discredited in other US intelligence circles.

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.

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.)

Very few in congress, Democrat or Republican,
looked at the actual intelligence (classified information was available).

Funny how those in Congress aren't accused of anything.

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.

And the Bush administration created the belief that Sadam had something
to do with 9-11. If asked directly, Bush says there was no connection.

Yep, he sure did.

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

But there is a reason (including Cheney) why a high percentage of
Americans still believe this 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.)

On Jan 5, 11:08*am, bud-- wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 3, 2:14 pm, bud-- wrote:
wrote:

And BTW, I'm sick and tired of guys like you claiming Bush lied about
Iraq. * He didn't lie, but you are. * At the time Bush made the
decision to go to war, most of the Democrats were spouting the same
lines about WMDs.
The Bush administration was filled with neocons that wanted to "get"
Sadam since a little after the Gulf War (example Project for the New
American Century). The decision to "get" Sadam was virtually made just
after 9-11 (source Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neil and National
Security Adviser Richard Clarke). The administration threw up a series
of justifications, none of which worked. Until they got to WMDs.

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.

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.

I must have missed those other campaigns. I only remember one call
to war on Iraq. And that was the one voted on and approved by
Congress. Yeah, I know, they get a free pass, they were just
misled.



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.)

Because the traditional intelligence agencies weren't producing the
answers that were desired, a lot of 'intelligence' was moved into the
DOD under the control of the neocons.

A baseless charge.

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

They come up with such gems as
"curveball" and "yellowcake from Niger", both of which had been
discredited in other US intelligence circles.

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.

The Niger story indicated *current* attempts at WMDs.


How do you know when the huge yellow cake stockpile recovered in Iraq
after the war was obtained and from where? Again, a classic example
of looking at any action of Bush's with a jaundiced eye, while giving
every free pass to Iraq. You'd be here bitching about how Bush
should be impeached if it turned out that yellow cake was ultimately
turned into an atomic bomb. Impeached because he didn't do anything
about it. They had yellow cake and it may very well have come from
Niger. Can you prove otherwise ? What do you want, a Fed Ex tracking
receipt in the world of espionage?



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.)


All that doesn't matter a hoot. They had tons of yellow cake which
was found after the war.




Very few in congress, Democrat or Republican,
looked at the actual intelligence (classified information was available).

Funny how those in Congress aren't accused of anything.

Congress is guilty of being stampeded into a war by administration
propaganda.

Oh, please. Like Bush can stampede the likes of Hillary Clinton,
Biden, Pelosi, Reid.....



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.

So, say you. Afghanistan could be in the same situation today with
or without Iraq.





And the Bush administration created the belief that Sadam had something
to do with 9-11. If asked directly, Bush says there was no connection.

Yep, he sure did.

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


And how can that be when you acknowledge Bush said there was no
connection.




But there is a reason (including Cheney) why a high percentage of
Americans still believe this 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.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you find a president reminding a country about 911 and what
terrorists can do, while also stating what is going on in Iraq, Iran,
Korea, etc to be inappropriate? Why? The obvious point being made
is the previous administration ignored what was going on in
Afghanistan. They let it continue unchecked until finally what came
out of Afghanistan, wound up in NYC. Bush, fearing what Iraq was up
to, was not going to take that chance again. If that's connecting
Iraq and 911, then yes, he sure did and damn well should have.

On Jan 4, 10:03*am, " wrote:
saddam was exactly what that part of the world needed. brutal dictator
who also happened to act as control rods for iran.

Funny, isn't it libs like you who always rail against dictators? Oh
wait..... Libs only rail against them when they are friendly allies
of the US and even more when they are less brutal.




his claim of WMDs made perfect military sense it kept iran at bay.

That sure may be true. But it was backed up by the fact that he did
have WMDs and WMD programs too. He used them in war and on his own
people. See the above post where after the war he was found to have
tons of yellow cake uranium. Material that was to have been
destroyed per his agreement with the US, ending the previous war.
So, what was he doing with that? Just keeping it around as a
keepsake? Or are you gonna bitch like Bud that Bush was all wrong
about that too, because we can't prove conclusively that it came from
Niger?

With convenient 20-20 hindsight we know exactly what he did and didn't
have. But had he produced more WMDs and used them, you'd be here
bitching about how THAT started WWIII and it was all Bush' fault
because he didn't act.



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.

So, says you. I guess, once again, guys like Clinton, who had at
least 2 excellent opportunities to take out Bin Laden, who started
this current terrorist war, but decided not to act, get a total free
pass. BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer. You say Bush lied
about Iraq. So, did Bill Clinton, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Biden and a
long list of other Libs lie too when they made very similar, if not
exactly the same statements about the threat from Iraq and WMDs?



heck bush even managed to restart the cold war with russia


Yeah, I guess we should just bend over and let Putin have his way with
us. Another example of how libs like to side with dictators and
enemies of the USA, while doing everything they can to tear down
Bush. I guess the deaths of people who spoke out against Putin, like
Litvinenko who died from polonium poisoning don't matter much to
you. Or Politkovskaya, the 13th journalist gunned down because they
ran stories Putin and his gang didn't like. Maybe you also missed
the news about Russia invading Georgia.



few presidents restart cold war,

Few rational people would claim that we have a new cold war. Perhaps
your hatred for Bush has blinded you from the reality of what the real
cold war was like.


preside over a economic dump nearly
as large as the great depression,

Last time I checked, the president doesn't run the economy. I'd
like to hear the specifics of exactly what actions Bush took that lead
to the economic situation today. Did he force people to buy homes
they couldn't afford, driving up home prices to unsustainable
levels? Telll us exactly what he did and be specific. Also, point
out which of those were actions he took on his own authority, vs any
that were passed and approved by Congress.


go to war unnecessarily,

That may be true. 20-20 hindsight, which you have the convenience of,
is nice. Of course, if he hadn't gone to war and Iraq developed and
used WMDs, you'd be here bitching about that, wouldn't you?


plus
dramatically erode our constitution, all in 8 years.

Constitution looks perfectly fine to me.

On Jan 5, 11:45�am, wrote:
On Jan 4, 10:03�am, " wrote:

saddam was exactly what that part of the world needed. brutal dictator
who also happened to act as control rods for iran.

Funny, isn't it libs like you who always rail against dictators? � Oh
wait..... � Libs only rail against them when they are friendly allies
of the US and even more when they are less brutal.



his claim of WMDs made perfect military sense it kept iran at bay.

That sure may be true. � But it was backed up by the fact that he did
have WMDs and WMD programs too. �He used them in war and on his own
people. � �See the above post where after the war he was found to have
tons of yellow cake uranium. � Material that was to have been
destroyed per his agreement with the US, ending the previous war.
So, what was he doing with that? � Just keeping it around as a
keepsake? � Or are you gonna bitch like Bud that Bush was all wrong
about that too, because we can't prove conclusively that it came from
Niger?

With convenient 20-20 hindsight we know exactly what he did and didn't
have. � But had he produced more WMDs and used them, you'd be here
bitching about how THAT started WWIII and it was all Bush' fault
because he didn't act.



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.

So, says you. � I guess, once again, guys like Clinton, who had at
least 2 excellent opportunities to take out Bin Laden, who started
this current terrorist war, but decided not to act, get a total free
pass. � BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer. � You say Bush lied
about Iraq. � So, did Bill Clinton, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Biden and a
long list of other Libs lie too when they made very similar, if not
exactly the same statements about the threat from Iraq and WMDs?



heck bush even managed to restart the cold war with russia

Yeah, I guess we should just bend over and let Putin have his way with
us. � Another example of how libs like to side with dictators and
enemies of the USA, while doing everything they can to tear down
Bush. � I guess the deaths of people who spoke out against Putin, like
Litvinenko who died from polonium poisoning don't matter much to
you. � �Or Politkovskaya, the 13th journalist gunned down because they
ran stories Putin and his gang didn't like. � Maybe you also missed
the news about Russia invading Georgia.



few presidents restart cold war,

Few rational people would claim that we have a new cold war. � Perhaps
your hatred for Bush has blinded you from the reality of what the real
cold war was like.

preside over a economic dump nearly

as large as the great depression,

Last time I checked, the president doesn't run the economy. � �I'd
like to hear the specifics of exactly what actions Bush took that lead
to the economic situation today. � Did he force people to buy homes
they couldn't afford, driving up home prices to unsustainable
levels? � Telll us exactly what he did and be specific. � Also, point
out which of those were actions he took on his own authority, vs any
that were passed and approved by Congress.

go to war unnecessarily,

That may be true. �20-20 hindsight, which you have the convenience of,
is nice. � �Of course, if he hadn't gone to war and Iraq developed and
used WMDs, you'd be here bitching about that, wouldn't you?

�plus

dramatically erode our constitution, all in 8 years.

Constitution looks perfectly fine to me.

lack of faith in the president during the fiancial crisis made it far
far worse. if they had bailed out the sub primers we wouldnt be in
this condition today,

your a rush diitto head.

you know DITTO was the copyrighted name of the ffirst spirit
duplicator, mostly known as a ditto machine.

you create one master and can make hundreds of exact copies.

thats what you are a rush copy

On Jan 5, 11:45�am, wrote:
On Jan 4, 10:03�am, " wrote:

saddam was exactly what that part of the world needed. brutal dictator
who also happened to act as control rods for iran.

Funny, isn't it libs like you who always rail against dictators? � Oh
wait..... � Libs only rail against them when they are friendly allies
of the US and even more when they are less brutal.



his claim of WMDs made perfect military sense it kept iran at bay.

That sure may be true. � But it was backed up by the fact that he did
have WMDs and WMD programs too. �He used them in war and on his own
people. � �See the above post where after the war he was found to have
tons of yellow cake uranium. � Material that was to have been
destroyed per his agreement with the US, ending the previous war.
So, what was he doing with that? � Just keeping it around as a
keepsake? � Or are you gonna bitch like Bud that Bush was all wrong
about that too, because we can't prove conclusively that it came from
Niger?

With convenient 20-20 hindsight we know exactly what he did and didn't
have. � But had he produced more WMDs and used them, you'd be here
bitching about how THAT started WWIII and it was all Bush' fault
because he didn't act.



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.

So, says you. � I guess, once again, guys like Clinton, who had at
least 2 excellent opportunities to take out Bin Laden, who started
this current terrorist war, but decided not to act, get a total free
pass. � BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer. � You say Bush lied
about Iraq. � So, did Bill Clinton, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Biden and a
long list of other Libs lie too when they made very similar, if not
exactly the same statements about the threat from Iraq and WMDs?



heck bush even managed to restart the cold war with russia

Yeah, I guess we should just bend over and let Putin have his way with
us. � Another example of how libs like to side with dictators and
enemies of the USA, while doing everything they can to tear down
Bush. � I guess the deaths of people who spoke out against Putin, like
Litvinenko who died from polonium poisoning don't matter much to
you. � �Or Politkovskaya, the 13th journalist gunned down because they
ran stories Putin and his gang didn't like. � Maybe you also missed
the news about Russia invading Georgia.



few presidents restart cold war,

Few rational people would claim that we have a new cold war. � Perhaps
your hatred for Bush has blinded you from the reality of what the real
cold war was like.

preside over a economic dump nearly

as large as the great depression,

Last time I checked, the president doesn't run the economy. � �I'd
like to hear the specifics of exactly what actions Bush took that lead
to the economic situation today. � Did he force people to buy homes
they couldn't afford, driving up home prices to unsustainable
levels? � Telll us exactly what he did and be specific. � Also, point
out which of those were actions he took on his own authority, vs any
that were passed and approved by Congress.

go to war unnecessarily,

That may be true. �20-20 hindsight, which you have the convenience of,
is nice. � �Of course, if he hadn't gone to war and Iraq developed and
used WMDs, you'd be here bitching about that, wouldn't you?

�plus

dramatically erode our constitution, all in 8 years.

Constitution looks perfectly fine to me.

must be kinda lonely being one of so few bush supporters..........

heck a nun I known doesnt like bush, thats saying a LOT

On Jan 5, 12:32*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 5, 11:45 am, wrote:





On Jan 4, 10:03 am, " wrote:

saddam was exactly what that part of the world needed. brutal dictator
who also happened to act as control rods for iran.

Funny, isn't it libs like you who always rail against dictators? Oh
wait..... Libs only rail against them when they are friendly allies
of the US and even more when they are less brutal.

his claim of WMDs made perfect military sense it kept iran at bay.

That sure may be true. But it was backed up by the fact that he did
have WMDs and WMD programs too. He used them in war and on his own
people. See the above post where after the war he was found to have
tons of yellow cake uranium. Material that was to have been
destroyed per his agreement with the US, ending the previous war.
So, what was he doing with that? Just keeping it around as a
keepsake? Or are you gonna bitch like Bud that Bush was all wrong
about that too, because we can't prove conclusively that it came from
Niger?

With convenient 20-20 hindsight we know exactly what he did and didn't
have. But had he produced more WMDs and used them, you'd be here
bitching about how THAT started WWIII and it was all Bush' fault
because he didn't act.

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.

So, says you. I guess, once again, guys like Clinton, who had at
least 2 excellent opportunities to take out Bin Laden, who started
this current terrorist war, but decided not to act, get a total free
pass. BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer. You say Bush lied
about Iraq. So, did Bill Clinton, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Biden and a
long list of other Libs lie too when they made very similar, if not
exactly the same statements about the threat from Iraq and WMDs?

heck bush even managed to restart the cold war with russia

Yeah, I guess we should just bend over and let Putin have his way with
us. Another example of how libs like to side with dictators and
enemies of the USA, while doing everything they can to tear down
Bush. I guess the deaths of people who spoke out against Putin, like
Litvinenko who died from polonium poisoning don't matter much to
you. Or Politkovskaya, the 13th journalist gunned down because they
ran stories Putin and his gang didn't like. Maybe you also missed
the news about Russia invading Georgia.

few presidents restart cold war,

Few rational people would claim that we have a new cold war. Perhaps
your hatred for Bush has blinded you from the reality of what the real
cold war was like.

preside over a economic dump nearly

as large as the great depression,

Last time I checked, the president doesn't run the economy. I'd
like to hear the specifics of exactly what actions Bush took that lead
to the economic situation today. Did he force people to buy homes
they couldn't afford, driving up home prices to unsustainable
levels? Telll us exactly what he did and be specific. Also, point
out which of those were actions he took on his own authority, vs any
that were passed and approved by Congress.

go to war unnecessarily,

That may be true. 20-20 hindsight, which you have the convenience of,
is nice. Of course, if he hadn't gone to war and Iraq developed and
used WMDs, you'd be here bitching about that, wouldn't you?

plus

dramatically erode our constitution, all in 8 years.

Constitution looks perfectly fine to me.

lack of faith in the president during the fiancial crisis made it far
far worse.

That's about what I expected for specifics of how Bush is responsible
for the current economic events.,


if they had bailed out the sub primers we wouldnt be in
this condition today,

So you think the govt should have bailed out all those who took out
sub prime loans? And if they did, wouldn't you be here bitching
about Ford, GM, Chrysler, Circuit City, Bed Bath Beyond, and a long
list of others that had little to do with sub primes?



your a rush diitto head.

you know DITTO was the copyrighted name of the ffirst spirit
duplicator, mostly known as a ditto machine.

you create one master and can make hundreds of exact copies.

thats what you are a rush copy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, that'a a real persuasive and analytical argument to back up your
position.

BTW, still waiting for another answer. You claimed Bush lied about
Iraq. Were Bill and Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Biden and a whole
lot of other Dems lying when they made very similar statements about
what was going on in Iraq, WMDs and how serious the threat was?

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:11:58 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

Which one, the one he got fired for or the one which vaulted him into
the national limelight to begin with? Rather got his big break onto
the national scene when he reported on race riots in Houston in the
late 60's.

Dan Rather gained fame covering the JFK assassination, (walked a few
blocks to file a report) not some trivial riot in Texas that made him
famous. He is a Texan.

And a liar.

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).

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

Per aemeijers:
Another few years of this, and we will have had a de facto 1 for 10
dollar devaluation in my lifetime.

By my reckoning, we've already had between 1:6 and 1:7 since the
early sixties.
--
PeteCresswell

"SteveB" wrote in
:


unknown wrote this;

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).


Steve wrote;
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




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
at
kua.net

On Jan 5, 6:57�pm, "SteveB" 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).

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

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...

On 6 Jan 2009 00:26:29 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

actually,over 500 chemical weapons have been found in Iraq.
It's a big place.

The planes from the Air Force (not killed immediately) were found
covered with sand. It takes awhile to find all that stuff.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 06:55:12 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:11:58 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

Which one, the one he got fired for or the one which vaulted him into
the national limelight to begin with? Rather got his big break onto
the national scene when he reported on race riots in Houston in the
late 60's.

Dan Rather gained fame covering the JFK assassination, (walked a few
blocks to file a report) not some trivial riot in Texas that made him
famous. He is a Texan.

Hmm. There has been only one race riot in Texas in modern times - at Texas
Southern University (1967). JFK was assassinated in 1963. Rather joined CBS
in 1962.

No, Rather's initial fame took place when he was virtually the only reporter
on the scene to cover Hurricane Carla in 1961.


I can be wrong, but apparently Rather was first to announce over the
public air that JFK was dead. He ran to the local press office after
the shooting. He claims the fame, I guess.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:20:29 -0800, Oren wrote:

-snip-
I can be wrong, but apparently Rather was first to announce over the
public air that JFK was dead. He ran to the local press office after
the shooting. He claims the fame, I guess.

I think you are. Cronkite was the network guy-- and he announced it
during an afternoon soap opera. I think Rather was still a local
figure & they I doubt they could have broken in on a network program.

I think it is ironic that the same thing that made the last 8 years a
nearly constant clusterf**k sullied the name of a guy who would have
loved to see them outed in 2004-- hubris. Blather was/is an
arrogant blowhard, but all in all he did a pretty good job until he
got carried away by the Bush ANG story.

I think he did a better job reporting from the field in vietnam than
most of his compatriots- at least his Vietnam looked the most like
the one I spent a year in.

Jim
[Talk about thread drift. . . That lousy Bush/ANG report had nothing
to do with 60 minutes- and Rather has had little to do with it in his
long career at CBS.]

SteveB 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).

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?

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.)

There is no "we" or "our" on the internet and no single person may speak
for "them". While the gvt does hope to make a billion on the recovered
freqs, there are answers to all the quetions and no reason for anyone to
"lose" their signal. This's all just bitching for the sake of bitching.

Fringe area viewer,

Twayne


On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 06:55:12 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:11:58 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

Which one, the one he got fired for or the one which vaulted him
into the national limelight to begin with? Rather got his big
break onto the national scene when he reported on race riots in
Houston in the late 60's.

Dan Rather gained fame covering the JFK assassination, (walked a few
blocks to file a report) not some trivial riot in Texas that made
him famous. He is a Texan.

Hmm. There has been only one race riot in Texas in modern times - at
Texas Southern University (1967). JFK was assassinated in 1963.
Rather joined CBS in 1962.

No, Rather's initial fame took place when he was virtually the only
reporter on the scene to cover Hurricane Carla in 1961.


I can be wrong, but apparently Rather was first to announce over the
public air that JFK was dead. He ran to the local press office after
the shooting. He claims the fame, I guess.

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 21:05:05 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

George wrote:

As for seeing the economic growth today, well, 72 consecutive months
of economic growth ain't nuthin' to sneeze at. Then the Democrats
took control of Congress. In a mere 18 months, they managed to ****
it up beyond the abilities of mere mortals to comprehend.


You keep repeating that but since you and Rush Limbaw only seem to
know what they did why not spill the beans and make them look really
bad? How about the real dirt on what they did in those 18 months?


Rush Limbaw (Limbaugh) is a nobody. Why do people even refer to this
guy? He has never been a politician. All he is, is a fat slob with
an addiction to codeine and probably other drugs, and a mouth and ego
bigger than his fat belly. So, who cares what he says? I sure don't.

What difference does it make whether or what they did? They were in charge,
therefore they get the blame.

Inasmuch as the economy's in the ditch, it's obvious they DIDN'T do anything
(enough?) to mitigate the disaster.

Frankly, I'm at a loss. Used to be, Republican scandals were concentrated
above the neck and Democrat scandals were centered below the belt. Now, what
with Larry Craig tap-dancing in the men's room and Chris Dodd, Barney Frank,
Rod Blago, and others fiddling with the money and power, it seems as if the
emphasis has shifted.

"Jimw" wrote in message
...

Rush Limbaw (Limbaugh) is a nobody. Why do people even refer to this
guy? He has never been a politician. All he is, is a fat slob with
an addiction to codeine and probably other drugs, and a mouth and ego
bigger than his fat belly. So, who cares what he says? I sure don't.

He's not fat anymore. Good drugs.

Cheri

I called my congressional rep today and complained.

We have satellite tv BUT if the economy gets worse that may have to be
dropped.

We would need over the air and I found out theres no way to even get
ABC, their low power transmitter site must be 50 miles away far from
the center of the service area. Its even on the other side of
town.......

Call your congressmen and congresswomen.

The turn off can be delayed a few years so technical issues and
service can be improved

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:58:00 -0600, Jimw wrote:

Rush Limbaw (Limbaugh) is a nobody. Why do people even refer to this
guy? He has never been a politician. All he is, is a fat slob with
an addiction to codeine and probably other drugs, and a mouth and ego
bigger than his fat belly. So, who cares what he says? I sure don't.

I didn't burn my Selective Service Draft Card, just so he or anyone
else can speak as they wish.

Must be a reason he makes your skin crawl?!

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:11:49 -0800, wrote:

I called my congressional rep today and complained.

We have satellite tv BUT if the economy gets worse that may have to be
dropped.

We would need over the air and I found out theres no way to even get ABC,
their low power transmitter site must be 50 miles away far from the center
of the service area. Its even on the other side of town.......

Call your congressmen and congresswomen.

The turn off can be delayed a few years so technical issues and service
can be improved

Not gonna happen (delay). Consider instead prodding your congressperson
for open white space wireless broadband - which was part of the deal as
our consolation prize.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:25:39 -0500, Ann wrote:

...
Just relating how the coupon thing works ... which I didn't know until
recently. If one is to believe www.dtv2009.gov a coupon ordered today
should be mailed on the 19th of this month. But apparently that's in
doubt.

https://www.dtv2009.gov/WaitingList.aspx

"The TV Converter Box Coupon Program has reached its funding ceiling.
However, coupon requests from eligible households will be filled on a
first-come-first-served basis as funds become available from expiring
coupons. You will not receive coupons until funds becomes available. If
you would like to apply for a coupon today and are eligible, you will be
placed on a waiting list. ...


Consumers who have an analog TV and rely on a rooftop antenna or rabbit
ears to receive their programs are encouraged to take action to ensure at
least one TV in their home is prepared for the digital television
transition. You may:

* Purchase a TV converter box without a coupon;
* Buy a TV with a digital tuner, or;
* Subscribe to cable, satellite or another pay service."

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:26:12 -0500, Ann wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:25:39 -0500, Ann wrote:

...
Just relating how the coupon thing works ... which I didn't know until
recently. If one is to believe www.dtv2009.gov a coupon ordered today
should be mailed on the 19th of this month. But apparently that's in
doubt.

https://www.dtv2009.gov/WaitingList.aspx

"The TV Converter Box Coupon Program has reached its funding ceiling.
However, coupon requests from eligible households will be filled on a
first-come-first-served basis as funds become available from expiring
coupons. You will not receive coupons until funds becomes available. If
you would like to apply for a coupon today and are eligible, you will be
placed on a waiting list. ...


Consumers who have an analog TV and rely on a rooftop antenna or rabbit
ears to receive their programs are encouraged to take action to ensure at
least one TV in their home is prepared for the digital television
transition. You may:

* Purchase a TV converter box without a coupon;
* Buy a TV with a digital tuner, or;
* Subscribe to cable, satellite or another pay service."




In this case, it looks like some people WILL lose their tv signals in
February. This whole thing has been a joke. I got my coupons early
in the program. For the first two months no stores even had the
converters. I finally had to take a 1.5 hour drive (each way) to get
a converter about 2 days before the coupon expired. Now the stores
are loaded with the converters, and the coupons ran out. Leave it to
the government to screw things up.

In article ,
Ann wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:25:39 -0500, Ann wrote:

...
Just relating how the coupon thing works ... which I didn't know until
recently. If one is to believe www.dtv2009.gov a coupon ordered today
should be mailed on the 19th of this month. But apparently that's in
doubt.

https://www.dtv2009.gov/WaitingList.aspx

"The TV Converter Box Coupon Program has reached its funding ceiling.
However, coupon requests from eligible households will be filled on a
first-come-first-served basis as funds become available from expiring
coupons. You will not receive coupons until funds becomes available. If
you would like to apply for a coupon today and are eligible, you will be
placed on a waiting list. ...


Consumers who have an analog TV and rely on a rooftop antenna or rabbit
ears to receive their programs are encouraged to take action to ensure at
least one TV in their home is prepared for the digital television
transition. You may:

* Purchase a TV converter box without a coupon;
* Buy a TV with a digital tuner, or;
* Subscribe to cable, satellite or another pay service."



In a word:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!


This whole switchover thing has been hammered on so loud, for so long,
by so many, that unless they've been in a coma, in a cell tucked into
the back of the deepest cave available, under a pile of rocks, there's
no legitimate way for ANYONE to claim that they weren't warned in time
to prepare.

I can hardly be called "cutting edge" when it comes to TV - I DON'T EVEN
OWN AN ACTUAL TV SET! Haven't since something like 2001 when the last
set I had literally went up in smoke due to a lightning strike. Yet I'm
not going to be hit by the switchover. Why not? 'Cause I got my
converter box to plug into the 15 year old VCR that's plugged into the
16 year old computer that substitutes for a TV back in August. Took
about 2 minutes to fill out the form on the website. Took about 5
minutes to wire the box into the mix once I got it home from the store.
Major hassle, huh?

So as far as I'm concerned, the basic concept involved for anyone and
everyone who isn't ready for it by now is this: You were warned. You
should have got off your lazy ass and dealt with it months ago. If you
didn't, and now you're not going to get your coupon in time (or maybe
not at all), suck it up, 'cause it's your own fault.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:24:56 -0600, Jimw wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:26:12 -0500, Ann wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:25:39 -0500, Ann wrote:

...
Just relating how the coupon thing works ... which I didn't know until
recently. If one is to believe www.dtv2009.gov a coupon ordered today
should be mailed on the 19th of this month. But apparently that's in
doubt.

https://www.dtv2009.gov/WaitingList.aspx

"The TV Converter Box Coupon Program has reached its funding ceiling.
However, coupon requests from eligible households will be filled on a
first-come-first-served basis as funds become available from expiring
coupons. You will not receive coupons until funds becomes available. If
you would like to apply for a coupon today and are eligible, you will be
placed on a waiting list. ...


Consumers who have an analog TV and rely on a rooftop antenna or rabbit
ears to receive their programs are encouraged to take action to ensure at
least one TV in their home is prepared for the digital television
transition. You may:

* Purchase a TV converter box without a coupon; * Buy a TV with a
digital tuner, or;
* Subscribe to cable, satellite or another pay service."

In this case, it looks like some people WILL lose their tv signals in
February. This whole thing has been a joke. I got my coupons early in
the program. For the first two months no stores even had the converters.
I finally had to take a 1.5 hour drive (each way) to get a converter about
2 days before the coupon expired. Now the stores are loaded with the
converters, and the coupons ran out. Leave it to the government to screw
things up.

They apparently underestimated how many cable/satellite households
also have a set(s) used for OTA reception. And, when the economy tanked,
more than the expected number of OTA households may have decided they
really didn't need to spend money on an HDTV right now.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:43:04 -0800, Don Bruder wrote:

In article ,
Ann wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:25:39 -0500, Ann wrote:

...
Just relating how the coupon thing works ... which I didn't know until
recently. If one is to believe www.dtv2009.gov a coupon ordered today
should be mailed on the 19th of this month. But apparently that's in
doubt.

https://www.dtv2009.gov/WaitingList.aspx

"The TV Converter Box Coupon Program has reached its funding ceiling.
However, coupon requests from eligible households will be filled on a
first-come-first-served basis as funds become available from expiring
coupons. You will not receive coupons until funds becomes available. If
you would like to apply for a coupon today and are eligible, you will be
placed on a waiting list. ...


Consumers who have an analog TV and rely on a rooftop antenna or rabbit
ears to receive their programs are encouraged to take action to ensure
at least one TV in their home is prepared for the digital television
transition. You may:

* Purchase a TV converter box without a coupon; * Buy a TV with a
digital tuner, or;
* Subscribe to cable, satellite or another pay service."



In a word:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!


This whole switchover thing has been hammered on so loud, for so long, by
so many, that unless they've been in a coma, in a cell tucked into the
back of the deepest cave available, under a pile of rocks, there's no
legitimate way for ANYONE to claim that they weren't warned in time to
prepare.

I can hardly be called "cutting edge" when it comes to TV - I DON'T EVEN
OWN AN ACTUAL TV SET! Haven't since something like 2001 when the last set
I had literally went up in smoke due to a lightning strike. Yet I'm not
going to be hit by the switchover. Why not? 'Cause I got my converter box
to plug into the 15 year old VCR that's plugged into the 16 year old
computer that substitutes for a TV back in August. Took about 2 minutes to
fill out the form on the website. Took about 5 minutes to wire the box
into the mix once I got it home from the store. Major hassle, huh?

So as far as I'm concerned, the basic concept involved for anyone and
everyone who isn't ready for it by now is this: You were warned. You
should have got off your lazy ass and dealt with it months ago. If you
didn't, and now you're not going to get your coupon in time (or maybe not
at all), suck it up, 'cause it's your own fault.

Who are you addressing? I don't recall anyone in this thread complaining
about not know how to get or hook up a converter box.

On Jan 7, 6:27�am, Ann wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:43:04 -0800, Don Bruder wrote:
In article ,
�Ann wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:25:39 -0500, Ann wrote:

...
Just relating how the coupon thing works ... which I didn't know until
recently. �If one is to believewww.dtv2009.gova coupon ordered today
should be mailed on the 19th of this month. �But apparently that's in
doubt.

https://www.dtv2009.gov/WaitingList.aspx

"The TV Converter Box Coupon Program has reached its funding ceiling.
However, coupon requests from eligible households will be filled on a
first-come-first-served basis as funds become available from expiring
coupons. You will not receive coupons until funds becomes available. If
you would like to apply for a coupon today and are eligible, you will be
placed on a waiting list. ...

Consumers who have an analog TV and rely on a rooftop antenna or rabbit
ears to receive their programs are encouraged to take action to ensure
at least one TV in their home is prepared for the digital television
transition. You may:

� � * Purchase a TV converter box without a coupon; * Buy a TV with a
� � digital tuner, or;
� � * Subscribe to cable, satellite or another pay service."

In a word:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!

This whole switchover thing has been hammered on so loud, for so long, by
so many, that unless they've been in a coma, in a cell tucked into the
back of the deepest cave available, under a pile of rocks, there's no
legitimate way for ANYONE to claim that they weren't warned in time to
prepare.

I can hardly be called "cutting edge" when it comes to TV - I DON'T EVEN
OWN AN ACTUAL TV SET! Haven't since something like 2001 when the last set
I had literally went up in smoke due to a lightning strike. Yet I'm not
going to be hit by the switchover. Why not? 'Cause I got my converter box
to plug into the 15 year old VCR that's plugged into the 16 year old
computer that substitutes for a TV back in August. Took about 2 minutes to
fill out the form on the website. Took about 5 minutes to wire the box
into the mix once I got it home from the store. Major hassle, huh?

So as far as I'm concerned, the basic concept involved for anyone and
everyone who isn't ready for it by now is this: You were warned. You
should have got off your lazy ass and dealt with it months ago. If you
didn't, and now you're not going to get your coupon in time (or maybe not
at all), suck it up, 'cause it's your own fault.

Who are you addressing? �I don't recall anyone in this thread complaining
about not know how to get or hook up a converter box.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

not only that, but in my area the ABC channel isnt available without
spending hundreds of bucks on a roof top antenna with rotor, and even
the one person who did, and spent over 500 bucks with rotor only gets
WTAE occasionally.

I spoke to the station they moved the transmitter site futher from
pittsburgh and the digitals permanent power is far less than the
analog channel 4 one.

this really sucks and I helped campaign for my cngressen jason
alltmire I called his office and said I want a call back on this
issue.

will call bob casey today and waste more time calling the out of touch
arlen spectre

His only issue recently was cheating in football, he went nuts over
that.....

if everyone called their reps this dumb move would be put off
indefinetely.

do tell whats the reuse plan for these frequencise? wireless free
broadband? or emergency services?

iby now have the channels been auctioned off? I mean if you sell your
home does it normally sit vacant for years?

the providers of whatever is replacing tv should be building their
transmitter sites now, ready to activate shortly.

yet no word on that

Just in case you missed it the first time-

Don Bruder wrote:

-snip-
So as far as I'm concerned, the basic concept involved for anyone and
everyone who isn't ready for it by now is this: You were warned. You
should have got off your lazy ass and dealt with it months ago. If you
didn't, and now you're not going to get your coupon in time (or maybe
not at all), suck it up, 'cause it's your own fault.

Amen- buy a book.

Jim

Ann wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:43:04 -0800, Don Bruder wrote:
-snip-
So as far as I'm concerned, the basic concept involved for anyone and
everyone who isn't ready for it by now is this: You were warned. You
should have got off your lazy ass and dealt with it months ago. If you
didn't, and now you're not going to get your coupon in time (or maybe not
at all), suck it up, 'cause it's your own fault.

Who are you addressing? I don't recall anyone in this thread complaining
about not know how to get or hook up a converter box.

Not Don- but since I "'Amen'd" him earlier. . . .

It seems to me that in this thread and on the news there seems to be
a whole lot of handwringing over folks who might "lose the ability to
watch TV". [arguably not a terrible thing especially if you're
restricted to broadcast TV]

I'm with Don- that if you are about to lose your TV [in February] it
is your own fault. The annoying reminders are on my TV a dozen times
a day and have been for several months. The fixes are simple-- and
even if you still lose your TV in Feb. - you can probably pick up a
$20 TV at a thrift shop to restore your 'fix'. Or- God forbid- pay
$40 for a converter box. [which will probably go down to $20 when the
gov't subsidy runs out.]

Jim

On Jan 7, 7:53�am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
Ann wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:43:04 -0800, Don Bruder wrote:
-snip-
So as far as I'm concerned, the basic concept involved for anyone and
everyone who isn't ready for it by now is this: You were warned. You
should have got off your lazy ass and dealt with it months ago. If you
didn't, and now you're not going to get your coupon in time (or maybe not
at all), suck it up, 'cause it's your own fault.

Who are you addressing? �I don't recall anyone in this thread complaining
about not know how to get or hook up a converter box.

Not Don- but since I "'Amen'd" him earlier. . . . � �

�It seems to me that in this thread and on the news there seems to be
a whole lot of handwringing over folks who might "lose the ability to
watch TV". � [arguably not a terrible thing especially if you're
restricted to broadcast TV]

I'm with Don- that if you are about to lose your TV [in February] it
is your own fault. � The annoying reminders are on my TV a dozen times
a day and have been for several months. � �The fixes are simple-- and
even if you still lose your TV in Feb. - you can probably pick up a
$20 TV at a thrift shop to restore your 'fix'. �Or- God forbid- pay
$40 for a converter box. [which will probably go down to $20 when the
gov't subsidy runs out.]

Jim

doesnt help if the channels signals are too weak

And at least WTAE who was never known for good signals around here
moved the digital transmitter site far south of pittsburgh and has the
least output power of any station.

they dont appear to care.

In article ,
Don Bruder wrote:

You were warned. You should have got off your lazy ass and
dealt with it months ago. If you didn't, and now you're not
going to get your coupon in time (or maybe not at all),
suck it up, 'cause it's your own fault.

[Jumping to my feet, applauding wildly]

YES!! Well put! Amen!
--

JR

In article ,
(aemeijers) says...
Steve Barker wrote:
if the OP can't get cable or dish, i'm sure he was on a library computer
posting his message. He CERTAINLY can't get internet at his house either.

s
Dialup still exists. I'd probably give up Internet if I had to go back
to it for more than very occasional emergency backup use, but it is out
there. If somebody only uses Usenet, or the few remaining
properly-designed websites that don't depend on Flash or similar useless
toys, you CAN live with dialup. I've been on the 'net since the mid-80s,
and only broke down and got DSL 2 years ago, when my ISP outsourced
their PoP to a place I could only get a 28.8 connection to.

(There are days I think that I SHOULD cancel the Satt and DSL. 90 bucks
a month would stay in my pocket, and I might actually make a dent in the
backed-up household chores and several years worth of unread books and
magazines.)

I think satellite TV and satellite internet has done a lot to break
rural isolation. There is no broadcast TV at my house. Never was,
never will be. The same is true of DSL or cable. Even broadcast radio
is strictly limited. I get two AM stations and three FM stations, and
one of the AM stations reduces power and disappears at sunset, though I
gain KGO after dark. If it weren't for Sirius, I wouldn't have any
music worth listening to.

The switch to digital TV has just meant no analog artifacts in my
satellite locals signal.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

wrote:
On Jan 7, 7:53�am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
Ann wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:43:04 -0800, Don Bruder wrote:
-snip-
So as far as I'm concerned, the basic concept involved for anyone and
everyone who isn't ready for it by now is this: You were warned. You
should have got off your lazy ass and dealt with it months ago. If you
didn't, and now you're not going to get your coupon in time (or maybe not
at all), suck it up, 'cause it's your own fault.
Who are you addressing? �I don't recall anyone in this thread complaining
about not know how to get or hook up a converter box.
Not Don- but since I "'Amen'd" him earlier. . . . � �

�It seems to me that in this thread and on the news there seems to be
a whole lot of handwringing over folks who might "lose the ability to
watch TV". � [arguably not a terrible thing especially if you're
restricted to broadcast TV]

I'm with Don- that if you are about to lose your TV [in February] it
is your own fault. � The annoying reminders are on my TV a dozen times
a day and have been for several months. � �The fixes are simple-- and
even if you still lose your TV in Feb. - you can probably pick up a
$20 TV at a thrift shop to restore your 'fix'. �Or- God forbid- pay
$40 for a converter box. [which will probably go down to $20 when the
gov't subsidy runs out.]

Jim

doesnt help if the channels signals are too weak

And at least WTAE who was never known for good signals around here
moved the digital transmitter site far south of pittsburgh and has the
least output power of any station.


According to the FCC database both WTAE transmitters (channel 4 analog
and 51 DT )are here at the same location:

CDBS Application ID No.: 203659

40° 16' 49.00" N Latitude
79° 48' 11.00" W Longitude (NAD 27)


What will likely happen when analog is turned off is that the DT will
get changes in some or all of antenna/ERP/frequency


they dont appear to care.

wrote:
On Jan 7, 6:27�am, Ann wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:43:04 -0800, Don Bruder wrote:
In article ,
�Ann wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:25:39 -0500, Ann wrote:
...
Just relating how the coupon thing works ... which I didn't know until
recently. �If one is to believewww.dtv2009.gova coupon ordered today
should be mailed on the 19th of this month. �But apparently that's in
doubt.
https://www.dtv2009.gov/WaitingList.aspx
"The TV Converter Box Coupon Program has reached its funding ceiling.
However, coupon requests from eligible households will be filled on a
first-come-first-served basis as funds become available from expiring
coupons. You will not receive coupons until funds becomes available. If
you would like to apply for a coupon today and are eligible, you will be
placed on a waiting list. ...
Consumers who have an analog TV and rely on a rooftop antenna or rabbit
ears to receive their programs are encouraged to take action to ensure
at least one TV in their home is prepared for the digital television
transition. You may:
� � * Purchase a TV converter box without a coupon; * Buy a TV with a
� � digital tuner, or;
� � * Subscribe to cable, satellite or another pay service."
In a word:
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!
This whole switchover thing has been hammered on so loud, for so long, by
so many, that unless they've been in a coma, in a cell tucked into the
back of the deepest cave available, under a pile of rocks, there's no
legitimate way for ANYONE to claim that they weren't warned in time to
prepare.
I can hardly be called "cutting edge" when it comes to TV - I DON'T EVEN
OWN AN ACTUAL TV SET! Haven't since something like 2001 when the last set
I had literally went up in smoke due to a lightning strike. Yet I'm not
going to be hit by the switchover. Why not? 'Cause I got my converter box
to plug into the 15 year old VCR that's plugged into the 16 year old
computer that substitutes for a TV back in August. Took about 2 minutes to
fill out the form on the website. Took about 5 minutes to wire the box
into the mix once I got it home from the store. Major hassle, huh?
So as far as I'm concerned, the basic concept involved for anyone and
everyone who isn't ready for it by now is this: You were warned. You
should have got off your lazy ass and dealt with it months ago. If you
didn't, and now you're not going to get your coupon in time (or maybe not
at all), suck it up, 'cause it's your own fault.
Who are you addressing? �I don't recall anyone in this thread complaining
about not know how to get or hook up a converter box.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

not only that, but in my area the ABC channel isnt available without
spending hundreds of bucks on a roof top antenna with rotor, and even
the one person who did, and spent over 500 bucks with rotor only gets
WTAE occasionally.

I spoke to the station they moved the transmitter site futher from
pittsburgh and the digitals permanent power is far less than the
analog channel 4 one.

this really sucks and I helped campaign for my cngressen jason
alltmire I called his office and said I want a call back on this
issue.

will call bob casey today and waste more time calling the out of touch
arlen spectre

His only issue recently was cheating in football, he went nuts over
that.....

if everyone called their reps this dumb move would be put off
indefinetely.

do tell whats the reuse plan for these frequencise? wireless free
broadband? or emergency services?

iby now have the channels been auctioned off? I mean if you sell your
home does it normally sit vacant for years?

Not quite, your home is sold but you will still occupy it with all of
your stuff until Feb,09.


the providers of whatever is replacing tv should be building their
transmitter sites now, ready to activate shortly.

yet no word on that

On Jan 4, 1:30*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
..
So, if you don't like someone, stoop as low as you can to get even. *That
sort of thing tend to come back to haunt you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reputations can come back to haunt, yes. Like a sewer back up? Right?
But usually not so quickly as will occur in this instance.

Because usually the two ways ro get 'nice' things said about you are
either die or retire (forcibly or voluntarily).
..
US president! Public figure. A very public figure; leader of the free
world and all that crap etc.

For the last 8 years! ( What WERE the re-electors thinking about?) God
help us!

Looking forward to an already advertised TV documentary called "The
worst presidency of the last 50 years".

Probably be on television on a network or networks that tend to
adulate the 'Amurrican' viewpoint to distortion of other world points
of view. My country right or wrong and all that nonsense. etc. etc.
etc.

Do hope for sake of all of us, cooler, better thinking and smarter
minds prevail in future.

Also in the light of the present credit-fiasco caused world wide
economic problems US influence and credibility is going to be a lot
less in the future.

On Jan 7, 6:42*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
Just in case you missed it the first time-

Don Bruder wrote:

-snip-

So as far as I'm concerned, the basic concept involved for anyone and
everyone who isn't ready for it by now is this: You were warned. You
should have got off your lazy ass and dealt with it months ago. If you
didn't, and now you're not going to get your coupon in time (or maybe
not at all), suck it up, 'cause it's your own fault.

Amen- buy a book.

Jim

Better yet, get a library card!

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:53:33 -0500, Jim Elbrecht wrote:

Ann wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:43:04 -0800, Don Bruder wrote:
-snip-
So as far as I'm concerned, the basic concept involved for anyone and
everyone who isn't ready for it by now is this: You were warned. You
should have got off your lazy ass and dealt with it months ago. If you
didn't, and now you're not going to get your coupon in time (or maybe
not at all), suck it up, 'cause it's your own fault.

Who are you addressing? I don't recall anyone in this thread complaining
about not know how to get or hook up a converter box.

Not Don- but since I "'Amen'd" him earlier. . . .

It seems to me that in this thread and on the news there seems to be
a whole lot of handwringing over folks who might "lose the ability to
watch TV". [arguably not a terrible thing especially if you're
restricted to broadcast TV]

I'm with Don- that if you are about to lose your TV [in February] it is
your own fault. The annoying reminders are on my TV a dozen times a day
and have been for several months. The fixes are simple-- and even if
you still lose your TV in Feb. - you can probably pick up a $20 TV at a
thrift shop to restore your 'fix'. Or- God forbid- pay $40 for a
converter box. [which will probably go down to $20 when the gov't subsidy
runs out.]

Jim

That's a straw man response. The complaints were by posters (including
me) who DO HAVE a converter box (and/or HDTV set) and are unable to get
some/most of the stations we receive now. How is that our fault?

That said, it is what I expected so I was "prepared". The one thing that
is seriously irritating is that of the four fringe analog stations I get
now, the only one that comes through in digital is the FOX station.

On Jan 7, 9:23�am, George wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 7, 7:53 am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
Ann wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:43:04 -0800, Don Bruder wrote:
-snip-
So as far as I'm concerned, the basic concept involved for anyone and
everyone who isn't ready for it by now is this: You were warned. You
should have got off your lazy ass and dealt with it months ago. If you
didn't, and now you're not going to get your coupon in time (or maybe not
at all), suck it up, 'cause it's your own fault.
Who are you addressing? I don't recall anyone in this thread complaining
about not know how to get or hook up a converter box.
Not Don- but since I "'Amen'd" him earlier. . . .

It seems to me that in this thread and on the news there seems to be
a whole lot of handwringing over folks who might "lose the ability to
watch TV". [arguably not a terrible thing especially if you're
restricted to broadcast TV]

I'm with Don- that if you are about to lose your TV [in February] it
is your own fault. The annoying reminders are on my TV a dozen times
a day and have been for several months. The fixes are simple-- and
even if you still lose your TV in Feb. - you can probably pick up a
$20 TV at a thrift shop to restore your 'fix'. Or- God forbid- pay
$40 for a converter box. [which will probably go down to $20 when the
gov't subsidy runs out.]

Jim

doesnt help if the channels signals are too weak

And at least WTAE who was never known for good signals around here
moved the digital transmitter site far south of pittsburgh and has the
least output power of any station.

According to the FCC database both WTAE transmitters (channel 4 analog
and 51 DT )are here at the same location:

CDBS Application ID No.: 203659

� � 40� 16' 49.00" N Latitude
� � 79� 48' 11.00" W Longitude (NAD 27)

What will likely happen when analog is turned off is that the DT will
get changes in some or all of antenna/ERP/frequency



they dont appear to care.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hat fascinates me even the station employee said analog transmitter is
by parkway, digital transmitter in elizabeth pa where it will remain
at same power.

she remarked lots of people are calling sorry theres nothing we can do
have you considered cable