Obama Asks Congress to Delay Digital TV Switch

[nightflier]

OVERNIGHT???
They have been planning this for over a decade, and have put it off twice!

Government plans for decades for all kinds of stuff, but only when it actually acts (and that is seldom) do people get their panties in a bunch.

Sticks, you're starting to side more and more with Pix. Should someone call for an intervention?

And regarding the $40, my guess is that it's not just the money. It's also the fact that they have to request the voucher, then go to the store, pick one out, and then plug it in. Most of these folks stared for years at the flashing 12:00 on their VCR's, and the only reason they bought that DVD player at Walmart is because the supermarket rental wasn't carrying tapes anymore. These people aren't exactly the ones to propel the A/V industry forward - rather they are the ones that drag it down.

BradH,

I'm not saying that government is that smart and I'm certainly not suggesting conspiracies. What I am saying is that this is a particularly unusual time with a lot of events coming together into what could certainly become the perfect storm with the right kind of spark. Swarming, drooling zombies, I doubt it, but why tempt fate? I certainly don't think that the SDZ (for lack of a better term for swarming drooling zombies) is the reason for the delay, but I don't think the bow-tie bean-counters that advise Washington are stupid enough to ignore the added effect. Let's not forget that an unusually large percentage of the SDZ will be pissed-off gun-toting Bush/McCain supporters just itching for payback. But I'll give you that the main reason is simply that Washington doesn't have the money, or that they did and used it for something else (typical).

Regarding the lawsuits, I'm sure that once the first lawyers start appearing at the white house door, Obama will go ahead and let the switch happen. Everything we've heard about him is that he respects people/corporations with deep pockets and he's no stranger to the legal process. My guess is that it will take a few weeks, maybe months and by then the factors I mentioned above will then be lessened. If anything, my guess is that he'll postpone it until after the spring sports, and I don't think the advertisers will mind so much, either. Maybe it will be a gradual switch-over. How many companies are really ready to start using the analog bandwidth they've purchased right away? Not too many, I'm guessing. Pix's fear mongering on this is overrated.

Speaking of pix,

And where is the logic in making 300 million wait for 7 million?

Seven million SDZ. That's no small number. Let's hope they stay in South Texas, or wherever Pix is from.

[BradH]

...but I don't think the bow-tie bean-counters that advise Washington are stupid enough to ignore the added effect. Let's not forget that an unusually large percentage of the SDZ will be pissed-off gun-toting Bush/McCain supporters just itching for payback.

The pissed-off-gun-toting Bush/McCain supporters aren't going to shoot anybody. I have to say, you have a binary, cartoon-like view of the political landscape that's as dark and extreme as pix's. The bean counters in Washington don't have that view, they just count beans. (My wife would kill me right about now, she's a CPA). I come down center-right on economics but foreign affairs is my thing. Given that, I couldn't in good conscience vote for either canditate this election, just couldn't do it. Just so you know where I stand.

Big O is asking for a 3-month extension but I don't think he cares either way. It's like his comments on the BCS poll, a little something to keep is name mentioned around the water cooler until inauguration day. There's a very important sports/performance element to politics & he's damn good at it. Meanwhile, Verizon is saying hell no, make the switch because too much planning & investment has been scheduled around it.

[Ajani]

The bean counters in Washington don't have that view, they just count beans. (My wife would kill me right about now, she's a CPA).

Hence? I'm a CPA too and I've never counted a bean in my life... hell, I don't even eat beans... they give me gas...


I wonder if that was the best smiley to use, considering my statement about Gas?

[BradH]

I wonder if that was the best smiley to use, considering my statement about Gas?

I was waiting for something to happen...

[Rich-n-Texas]

Hence? I'm a CPA too and I've never counted a bean in my life... hell, I don't even eat beans... they give me gas...


I wonder if that was the best smiley to use, considering my statement about Gas?

Want my opinion Ajani?

[GMichael]

Want my opinion Ajani?

Say no. Please.

[Ajani]

Want my opinion Ajani?

Nope

[GMichael]

Nope

Tanx

[Rich-n-Texas]

Jerks!

[nightflier]

The pissed-off-gun-toting Bush/McCain supporters aren't going to shoot anybody. I have to say, you have a binary, cartoon-like view of the political landscape that's as dark and extreme as pix's.

OK, I'll admit, I was being facetious; trying to insert a little light humor into it.

But I certainly don't consider myself an extremist with a "cartoon-like view of the political landscape," and absolutely nowhere near Pix's place on the spectrum.

The bean counters in Washington don't have that view, they just count beans. (My wife would kill me right about now, she's a CPA). I come down center-right on economics but foreign affairs is my thing. Given that, I couldn't in good conscience vote for either canditate this election, just couldn't do it.

Well that's odd, because if you did have foreign experience you'd realize that putting yourself center-right here, pretty much puts you on the extreme right in most other Westernized countries. Take for example your inability to vote for either candidate. Obama certainly had a more pragmatic, international, diplomacy-centered perspective than McCain's cowboy approach. Being undecided between these two choices on the foreign affairs front is not at all what I would expect someone who is knowledgeable in the field to be unclear about. If you're wondering, the foreign service corps and our military personnel, particularly the top brass, overwhelmingly voted for Obama and not McCain, according to the Economist.

Just so you know where I stand.

Well, actually, I can't quite figure that out.

Big O is asking for a 3-month extension but I don't think he cares either way. It's like his comments on the BCS poll, a little something to keep is name mentioned around the water cooler until inauguration day.

This is your speculation, and a very negative one at that. It's quite clear you don't like Obama. Well tough. Hes going to be around for the next four years at least. And so far, it sure looks like a whole lot of people are sick & tired of cowboy politics and can't wait for him to start, so he's riding pretty high right now with the mainstream American public.

There's a very important sports/performance element to politics & he's damn good at it.

Care to elaborate on that little gem?

Meanwhile, Verizon is saying hell no, make the switch because too much planning & investment has been scheduled around it.

Well of course, the one company that paid the most for their share of the spectrum is pushing for the government to go forward full bore. But that's just one corporation, and perhaps the one with the deepest pockets too. I doubt the other players are as gung-ho and ready to switch. Obviously from what others have been writing, the cable companies aren't all that ready.

[Rich-n-Texas]

OK, I'll admit, I was being facetious; trying to insert a little light humor into it...

No you weren't. You were challenged and crumbled like a house of cards!

(he he snicker snicker)

[BradH]

Take for example your inability to vote for either candidate. Obama certainly had a more pragmatic, international, diplomacy-centered perspective than McCain's cowboy approach. Being undecided between these two choices on the foreign affairs front is not at all what I would expect someone who is knowledgeable in the field to be unclear about.

I'm not saying I have foreign policy experience, I'm just saying that's where my interest lies. I didn't vote for Obama because I disagreed with his domestic view, although at this point it's not entirely clear what his view really is. As for foreign policy, he was pretty much an open book as far as I could tell. I didn't fault him for having very little actual experience or deep knowledge of foreign affairs, what candidate ever did who wasn't a sitting vice-president? These things always come down to who the advisors are and, unfortunately, there's no way to tell beforehand. But McCain wanted to kick Russia out of the G-8 which was the depth of stupidity. When he said, "We're all Georgians now," I thought WTF?? Really? Then he ran around like a chicken with his head cut off during the TARP vote while Obama played the cool customer. Guess which behavior the markets like? McCain suffuered from being in Congress too long. The legislative way of thinking is not very useful in an executive capacity and it was hard to tell what he thought most of the time anyway. So I just said screw it. There was no mystery who was going to win anyway. Despite the media driven polls, you could see the electoral college a mile away.

[pixelthis]

I am not "anti gun".
Doesnt anybody on this board have any reading comprehension skills?
A libertarian once was asked how far the ownership of guns should go, and he replied
"well, if everybody was packin nukes there sure wouldnt be a 40% tax rate, now would there?".
I carried a gun for fifteen years as a law officer.
I like what Robert heinlein said about guns.
"You are a pink slug made up mostly of water, if you have a gun you are a pink slug
made mostly of water with a gun.
Guns are a tool and can be quite handy.
Liberals think they are a totem of evil(most liberals are like savages with a complete
set of supersitous beleifs).
I tell you one thing, without a means to defend yourself there is no political freedom
whatsoever.
The first thing tyrants do when they take over is confiscate the weapons.
The liberal eagerness to do so betrays their real agenda more than anything else.

[Mr Peabody]

[QUOTE=pixelthis]I am not "anti gun".
Doesnt anybody on this board have any reading comprehension skills?
A libertarian once was asked how far the ownership of guns should go, and he replied
"well, if everybody was packin nukes there sure wouldnt be a 40% tax rate, now would there?".

* Huh? What's that mean?

I carried a gun for fifteen years as a law officer.

* It would seem as a law officer you'd know first hand what scum lurks in the streets and wouldn't be without your gun until death.

I like what Robert heinlein said about guns.
"You are a pink slug made up mostly of water, if you have a gun you are a pink slug
made mostly of water with a gun.

* You like that? Dr. Seuss wrote more profound words. What Heinlein wrote makes no sense at all. You need to read better philosophy. If he's a Libertarian no wonder they never gain traction as a party.

Guns are a tool and can be quite handy.

* Whatcha going to do when you need your tool, tool?

Liberals think they are a totem of evil(most liberals are like savages with a complete
set of supersitous beleifs).

* Who's "they"? Are you saying Liberals think of themselves as totems of evil? Now you say Liberals worship the devil? Isn't Supersitous an old folks disease?

Here's some philosophy for you.
" You took his land and you ate his corn.
And on his grave your land was born
You took his pride and fed him dirt
You wished him winter without a shirt
And you called this red man savage
After you crushed him, you helped him up
To let him drink from a empty cup
You gave him the navy without the fleet
You made him lick your hand and kiss your feet
You called this mad dog savage
Well I found a book one day
Looked up red and white to see what it say
One was a savage, the other unlearned
Like a look in the mirror, the tables were turned
Because history has named you savage.....
------J D Blackfoot

I tell you one thing, without a means to defend yourself there is no political freedom
whatsoever.

* Ah! I get it, Libertarians are for no political freedom, hence, no gun.

The first thing tyrants do when they take over is confiscate the weapons.

* Well you'll be a short order when they do

The liberal eagerness to do so betrays their real agenda more than anything else.:

Confinscating guns would be like sweeping sand from the beach. My take on gun control, I don't think criminals go into the local sporting goods store to buy their weapons. On the other hand, if their weren't any out here to steal.... Man, I hate when I debate myself. Let me and myself hash this out a bit and I'll tell you more later.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=Mr Peabody][QUOTE=pixelthis]I am not "anti gun".
Doesnt anybody on this board have any reading comprehension skills?
A libertarian once was asked how far the ownership of guns should go, and he replied
"well, if everybody was packin nukes there sure wouldnt be a 40% tax rate, now would there?".

* Huh? What's that mean?

That means that our govt no longer fears the people.
Fear a govt that doesnt fear the people


I carried a gun for fifteen years as a law officer.

* It would seem as a law officer you'd know first hand what scum lurks in the streets and wouldn't be without your gun until death.

I know better than you.
Study after study has shown that the average joe tends to think there is more crime than there actually is, and I HAVE FOUND THIS TO BE THE CASE.
Add to the fact that training and experience tend to lead me not to worry as much over a
"gun totin maniac".
When they start lootin grocery stores then I will get a gun.
Until then you have a bigger threat from the govt than street thugs.
Street thugs arent nearly as well armed and tend to rob you only once.
The govt does it every year

I like what Robert heinlein said about guns.
"You are a pink slug made up mostly of water, if you have a gun you are a pink slug
made mostly of water with a gun.

* You like that? Dr. Seuss wrote more profound words. What Heinlein wrote makes no sense at all. You need to read better philosophy. If he's a Libertarian no wonder they never gain traction as a party.

Robert Heinlein was a SCI-FI writer, some think one of the greatest, and also an ex
NAVY PILOT with seal training.
The fact that you dont understand this means that when (not if BUT WHEN) hungry
mobs start roaming the streets you should basically hope for a quick death.
Handguns (the favorite target of liberals) is for short range work only.
And training needs to be constant as does maintenence, as with long guns.
As for the statement it is NOT philosopical, nor is it intended to be.
Basically it is saying that a human being is on average not that good in a fight,
and without training a gun doesnt improve his odds.
It depends more on teh fight in the dog than the dog in the fight


Guns are a tool and can be quite handy.

* Whatcha going to do when you need your tool, tool?

Theres plenty around, trust me I can get to one reletively easy

Liberals think they are a totem of evil(most liberals are like savages with a complete
set of supersitous beleifs).

* Who's "they"? Are you saying Liberals think of themselves as totems of evil? Now you say Liberals worship the devil? Isn't Supersitous an old folks disease?

Read what I said,(or lay off of the sauce).
Liberals think GUNS are a totem of evil, and if you get rid of them you will have a "better" society, despite all evidence to the contrary.
They ignore what happened in England and Austrailia when guns were banned


Here's some philosophy for you.
" You took his land and you ate his corn.
And on his grave your land was born
You took his pride and fed him dirt
You wished him winter without a shirt
And you called this red man savage
After you crushed him, you helped him up
To let him drink from a empty cup
You gave him the navy without the fleet
You made him lick your hand and kiss your feet
You called this mad dog savage
Well I found a book one day
Looked up red and white to see what it say
One was a savage, the other unlearned
Like a look in the mirror, the tables were turned
Because history has named you savage.....
------J D Blackfoot

Has nothing to do with anything
I am 25% indian BTW.
AMERICA NO LONGER BELONGED to the indians anymore than anybody else,
in fact they killed the original inhabitants when they first came here.
America is a vast land full of untold wealth, to expect it to be left alone so that
a bunch of savages can roam free on it(despoiling the land as much as any white man did)
would be naive, even for you. Somebody was going to move here.
And considering that the Chinese were here first and their colonies failed , the indian should consider themselves lucky.
If the Chinese (or vikings) had taken this land there would be few if any indians left



I tell you one thing, without a means to defend yourself there is no political freedom
whatsoever.

* Ah! I get it, Libertarians are for no political freedom, hence, no gun.

I HAVE NO GUN BECAUSE I HAVE NO NEED FOR ONE AT THIS TIME.
I have no problem with anyone owning a gun or anything else as long as they dont use it to practice aggression.
I dont have a motorcycle either or sailboat for that matter, does that mean that I am against those too?
The world will have to get a lot worse (which it is currently doing ) before I GET A GUN.
I can tell you one day, the day the govt bans guns IS THE DAY I WILL GET ONE.
And liberals arent for "political" freedom in paticular, that are for FREEDOM
IN GENERAL.



The first thing tyrants do when they take over is confiscate the weapons.

* Well you'll be a short order when they do

???
The liberal eagerness to do so betrays their real agenda more than anything else.:

Confinscating guns would be like sweeping sand from the beach. My take on gun control, I don't think criminals go into the local sporting goods store to buy their weapons. On the other hand, if their weren't any out here to steal.... Man, I hate when I debate myself. Let me and myself hash this out a bit and I'll tell you more later.

Yeah, like, why dont you go off into a corner and figure things out, because you obviously
have NO CLUE as to what you are talking about.
I will give you a clue, banning guns has NOTHING to do with criminal behaivor,
that is just a pretext for taking guns from the people they fear the most...
A WELL ARMED POPULACE.
And no banning would be impossible, but they can make it very difficult on those who insist on their right to bear arms.

[Ajani]

A libertarian once was asked how far the ownership of guns should go, and he replied
"well, if everybody was packin nukes there sure wouldnt be a 40% tax rate, now would there?".

There also wouldn't be any life on the planet as the lunatic anarchists and religious extremists would have blown us all the f..k up decades ago....

Liberals think they are a totem of evil(most liberals are like savages with a complete
set of supersitous beleifs).

Another well reasoned and logical argument.

I tell you one thing, without a means to defend yourself there is no political freedom
whatsoever.
The first thing tyrants do when they take over is confiscate the weapons.
The liberal eagerness to do so betrays their real agenda more than anything else.

Guns are a tough call... being able to defend yourself with extreme violence makes it much harder for tyrants to take you over... but it also makes it much harder to have a civilized society.... Why does America have such a nasty reputation for School shootings and postal shootings and just shootings in general? because there are so many f..king guns... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the more guns you have available, the more likely it is that lunatics and criminals will get their hands on them.... So the question is really: do you want a more civilized society (which could more easily be controlled by tyrants) or do you want a Wild West style society (where a tyrant would have little chance of making a play)?

[BradH]

This is your speculation, and a very negative one at that. It's quite clear you don't like Obama. Well tough. He's going to be around for the next four years at least.

I just realized that some of those quotes in your post with pix's name on them were actually mine so...I actually read them. I guess I should respond.

From your above quote it appears the proper speculation about everything Obama says would be the positive speculation. Got it.

There's a very important sports/performance element to politics & he's damn good at it.

Care to elaborate on that little gem?

Sure. Politics is partly a game that involves tactical and strategic performance. It's a very important part of politics too because if you suck at the game then you're not going to be successful. And Obama's damn good at that part. For example, he defeated the Clinton machine in the primaries and then co-opted them after he won so he wouldn't have to spend the next four years pushing back and triangulating around them. Once he locks in Hillary he throws on a layer of special envoys directly answerable to him so she's basically stuck with reforming the State Dept. And he knows she can do it too because they luuuuuuv them some Hillary at State. That might piss her off but she knows which side her bread is buttered on. That's strategic performance. The non-issue of the HDTV switchover is a small example. He's got bigger fish to fry but meanwhile he's letting the peeps know he feels their pain.

Obviously from what others have been writing, the cable companies aren't all that ready.

The cable companies don't have to be ready. They're cable.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I just realized that some of those quotes in your post with pix's name on them were actually mine so...I actually read them. I guess I should respond.

BradH, you have to read pixies posts carefully, he's brain dead when it comes to using the little tools that are there to help us with our posts.

[BradH]

BradH, you have to read pixies posts carefully, he's brain dead when it comes to using the little tools that are there to help us with our posts.

Well, sumpin' ain't right.

Who's on first?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Well, sumpin' ain't right.

Who's on first?

We've already had that discussion.. didn't make any difference. Some people, you just can't reach.