Devilish34 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 ABC turns ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSETue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm! Highlights on the agenda: ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House. The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate. I guess they're going to spoon feed America Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I guess they're going to spoon feed America Well NBC already went from inside the White House... Obama will be using the media to ram healthcare down our throats the same way he used the media to ram the concept of "change" down our throats. Doesn't matter what the message is. If you ask 1000 people without health care if they think national healthcare is a good idea 1000 of them will say yes just like 1000 people who cannot afford food would think it was a good idea for restaurants to give out free food... it is only human nature to think of yourself first when you are up against the wall whether it is good for everyone or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSC Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Let the state run propaganda begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 this country is fvcked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Well NBC already went from inside the White House... Obama will be using the media to ram healthcare down our throats the same way he used the media to ram the concept of "change" down our throats. Doesn't matter what the message is. If you ask 1000 people without health care if they think national healthcare is a good idea 1000 of them will say yes just like 1000 people who cannot afford food would think it was a good idea for restaurants to give out free food... it is only human nature to think of yourself first when you are up against the wall whether it is good for everyone or not. Democracy > your anecdotes. If the country want's basic universal health care, something almost every other developed nation provides it citizens, its going to get it. Where were the conservative tin foil hats when Bush was literally suspending rights and taking us to war? That was ok but going on tv to advocate for affordable health care isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Democracy > your anecdotes. If the country want's basic universal health care, something almost every other developed nation provides it citizens, its going to get it. Where were the conservative tin foil hats when Bush was literally suspending rights and taking us to war? That was ok but going on tv to advocate for affordable health care isn't? I'd be interested in seeing what percentage of people with health care now support universal healthcare vs. people who have no coverage. As for Bush, once again stop comparing Obama to Bush... I thought you guys were shooting higher then that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) I'd be interested in seeing what percentage of people with health care now support universal healthcare vs. people who have no coverage. Why? Only those who have health care should get to decide who gets to have it? As for Bush, once again stop comparing Obama to Bush... I thought you guys were shooting higher then that. Life is one giant comparison, I'm comparing your tin foil hat wear-age, not Obama to Bush, being able to pronounce nuclear already makes him light years ahead of the latter. Before this gets sidetracked is the complaint that ABC is letting Obama speak to the nation, or is the complaint about his health care plan? Edited June 16, 2009 by squishyx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Why? Only those who have health care should get to decide who gets to have it? No Einstein becaue of the point I raised above - everyone without healthcare thinks its a good idea. I understand why - but why not also mandate free shelter and food to everyone too - are they any less important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 No Einstein becaue of the point I raised above - everyone without healthcare thinks its a good idea. I understand why - but why not also mandate free shelter and food to everyone too - are they any less important? Seem like good mandates to me, we should get on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Where were the conservative tin foil hats when Bush was literally suspending rights and taking us to war? Which of your rights was suspended? None of mine were. Edited June 16, 2009 by Jimmy Leeds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Which of your rights was suspended?None of mine were. Suspension of habeas corpus, search and seizure rights, creation of the PATRIOT act. I'm sure there were others but those come to mind. I'm not going to argue if they were justifiable or not given that we were in national crisis mode, we've long since debated that to a standstill. But I find it funny how the tin foil hats stayed locked away then but come out now when Obama want's to address the nation of national tv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Three posts, three times you've said tin foil hats. Change it up a bit from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Three posts, three times you've said tin foil hats. Change it up a bit from time to time. Ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetsGoDevils Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 ABC turnsI guess they're going to spoon feed America Yeah, but not from the end you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matcat1116 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Suspension of habeas corpus, search and seizure rights, creation of the PATRIOT act. I'm sure there were others but those come to mind.I'm not going to argue if they were justifiable or not given that we were in national crisis mode, we've long since debated that to a standstill. But I find it funny how the tin foil hats stayed locked away then but come out now when Obama want's to address the nation of national tv. If you're admitting that the validity of Bush's "suspension of rights" are up for debate, and that both sides have a valid point (otherwise there would be no standstill), why should conservatives have been outraged by it? "Despite the fact that the issue of Bush's right suspensions are being debated, why weren't conservatives outraged by them?" Correct me if anything I stated is incorrect. Just trying to understand the point you're trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 If you're admitting that the validity of Bush's "suspension of rights" are up for debate, and that both sides have a valid point (otherwise there would be no standstill), why should conservatives have been outraged by it? Your premise is false, people can come to a stand still without agreeing the other side has valid points. "Despite the fact that the issue of Bush's right suspensions are being debated, why weren't conservatives outraged by them?"Correct me if anything I stated is incorrect. Just trying to understand the point you're trying to make. Going on national tv for a 30 minute spot doesn't hold a candle to suspending constitutional rights. So I find it funny that their is out cry for this and not for the latter which, and I can only speak for my self, seems far less severe. You can always change the channel you can't always get the right to fair trial back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matcat1116 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Your premise is false, people can come to a stand still without agreeing the other side has valid points. I didn't say agreeing that eachother's points are valid. It's simply common sense to suggest that an argument that comes to a standstill means that each side had valid points. If one side didn't, the debate would have a clear winner. If a man goes out on public television and announces his opinion that cars can fly, the debate is won his opposition, because his view is not a valid opinion. If a gun-control advocate and gun-control opponent have equally valid points, even though they may not admit their opposition's validity, the debate comes to a standstill. Going on national tv for a 30 minute spot doesn't hold a candle to suspending constitutional rights. So I find it funny that their is out cry for this and not for the latter which, and I can only speak for my self, seems far less severe. You can always change the channel you can't always get the right to fair trial back. However, if the suspension of those rights to a fair trial for an Al-Qaeda operative picked up in Iraq is deemed valid and necessary, there shouldn't be any outcry for it. Especially by the people that think that it WAS valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I didn't say agreeing that eachother's points are valid. It's simply common sense to suggest that an argument that comes to a standstill means that each side had valid points. If one side didn't, the debate would have a clear winner.If a man goes out on public television and announces his opinion that cars can fly, the debate is won his opposition, because his view is not a valid opinion. If a gun-control advocate and gun-control opponent have equally valid points, even though they may not admit their opposition's validity, the debate comes to a standstill. I don't agree with this. The guu with the flying car could just ramble on about tangents (much like we are doing now) and never make a solid valid point, the two parties will come to a standstill but the original person never made a valid point. You are assuming forum debates are easily won with a scoring system at the end of the match, thats simply not the case. More likely one person gets bored, ergo standstill. If you want to say that in theory one side always does a better job of presenting their side, fine, but that doesn't really model any real situation we have here that we could actually measure or use. However, if the suspension of those rights to a fair trial for an Al-Qaeda operative picked up in Iraq is deemed valid and necessary, there shouldn't be any outcry for it. Especially by the people that think that it WAS valid. I don't expect outrage, I just think its funny that some conservatives here no problem having their rights suspended for several years due to fear propaganda, and then get their panties in a twist when a democrat president goes on TV to promote health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I don't expect outrage, I just think its funny that some conservatives here no problem having their rights suspended for several years due to fear propaganda, and then get their panties in a twist when a democrat president goes on TV to promote health care. Let me ask you directly squish... these rights that you had taken unfairly from you by Bush... how did it change your life? Did it effect you at all? Would your life be at all different has he not done it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Let me ask you directly squish... these rights that you had taken unfairly from you by Bush... how did it change your life? Did it effect you at all? Would your life be at all different has he not done it? I'm personally indifferent on the issue. I can understand small suspension of civil liberties for the greater good, personally for example a friend of mines little sister threatened to blow up my high school on AOL's instant messenger way back in the day. Now she was just a little angry 14 year old with no access to explosives, it was totally idle; but the authorities caught it anyway and came to her house to investigate etc. In that sense I don't have an issue with it, what if her threat was real? A small word filter could have saved my and another 2-300 student's lives. Never the less Bush did take away those rights. If you are able to blow those over under the cover of "national security" then you really shouldn't have an issue with Obama going on TV to talk about health care reform. Personally that only thing that irks me is I have to hear him say "let me be clear" again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilish34 Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share Posted June 18, 2009 ABC REFUSES OPPOSITION ADS DURING WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMONPETEYD Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Communism anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunninWithTheDevil Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Three posts, three times you've said tin foil hats. Change it up a bit from time to time. thats really all you can come up with after that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 What's the big deal? It's not like they are being forced to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 What's the big deal? It's not like they are being forced to do this. Winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts