Updated with new video report Oct. 15, 2009, 1:27 p.m.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A woman being driven around in a rented limousine pulled up at a coat store and announced she'd won the lottery and would pay for everyone's purchases, police said, but she ended up causing a riot when customers realized it was a hoax.
Angry customers threw merchandise around and looted, leaving the store looking as though a hurricane had passed through it, police said.
Linda Brown was arrested Tuesday after an hours-long shopping spree that began when she hired a stretch Hummer limousine to drop her off at a Burlington Coat Factory store, police Sgt. Lt. Michael Deakins said. Brown walked to a cash register and loudly announced she had won the lottery and would pay for each person's merchandise up to $500, he said.
"Well, of course, people like to hear that," Deakins said. "Apparently they were in line calling relatives who were not at the store and told them to come."
People flooded the registers as cashiers began ringing up purchase after purchase, but Brown had not yet paid the bill, Deakins said. At least 500 people filled the aisles and another 1,000 were outside trying to get in, he said.
"She was telling people she won $1.5 million," Deakins said. "But it ends up she didn't win anything. She had no money to pay for anything."
About an hour later, Brown had the limousine driver take her to a bank to withdraw money, but she returned empty-handed, police Detective Steven Nace said. By then, store employees had called in two dozen police officers to handle the crowds.
Shopper Candace Jordan said she told Brown she didn't need clothes, she needed help paying her rent.
"And she said, 'How much is it?'" Jordan told WBNS-TV. "And she promptly wrote out a check."
By the time employees realized Brown didn't have any cash to pay, police said, she already had taken off in the limo.
That's when angry customers, realizing they weren't getting free coats, began throwing merchandise on the floor and grabbing clothes without paying for them, Nace said.
"Everybody was like, 'I still want my free stuff,' and that started the riot," he said. "It looks like (Hurricane) Katrina went through the store."
Police said they have no way of tracking down the customers who stole items and fled, but they're reviewing surveillance video.
When the limousine driver realized he wasn't going to be paid the $900 Brown owed him for the day's rental, he turned her in to police, Deakins said.
Brown, 44, was arrested on three outstanding warrants for aggravated menacing, misuse of a 911 system and causing false alarms. She was jailed late Wednesday, but no charges had been filed against her related to the coat store chaos pending a mental health evaluation.
Police said they didn't know if Brown had a lawyer. No telephone number was listed under her name, and no one answered repeated phone calls at the Franklin County Jail.
A spokeswoman for Burlington Coat Factory, which is based in Burlington, N.J., and has more than 300 stores across the country, said late Wednesday she couldn't comment on the incident.
When I saw this on world news last night I thought, "how psychotic she looked." Did she not think of how much trouble she was getting herself into? But then I thought, maybe she had a dream that was so real, she actual thought she had won. OR She had the actual winning numbers on an old ticket and thought she actually won. OR
SHE WANTED ATTENTION!!
I pray that God helps her through what ever her problem is.
"Brown, 44, was arrested on three outstanding warrants for aggravated menacing, misuse of a 911 system and causing false alarms. She was jailed late Wednesday, but no charges had been filed against her related to the coat store chaos pending a mental health evaluation."
It's obvious to me she's not running on all cylinders. This story is so funny. It's incredible that people would have the nerve to run out of the store with coats they didn't pay for. Apparently, if someone says they'll pay for your coat and they don't, people still think they can walk out with a coat they didn't pay for.
BTW, this has happened twice before under similar circumstances: Two people in different states ran a hoax Craigslist ad saying anyone who showed up at an address could take anything they wanted. In the first case, the house was in a rural area and people came and cleaned out the house while the owner while still there. When the owner insisted nothing was being given away, people took things anyway. When police arrived, they had to chase down people driving away with the owner's possessions. In the second case, a disgruntled former renter (or relative) ran a Craigslist ad for a vacant house. Because the owner was not there, people literally took everything including the kitchen sink!
No she didn't, Obama was supposed to write her a stimulas check for her vote, but hasn't gotten around to her, because he's jet setting around the globe with his Obamanites in tow...!
This woman needs help like the rest of this country.
Quote: Originally posted by MADDOG10 on Oct 15, 2009
No she didn't, Obama was supposed to write her a stimulas check for her vote, but hasn't gotten around to her, because he's jet setting around the globe with his Obamanites in tow...!
This woman needs help like the rest of this country.
What does Obama have to do with this? Is it because she's black?
Quote: Originally posted by mymonthlypicks on Oct 15, 2009
This is so Funny, True why such a low end coat factory I agree that should of open some eyes.
Wow, kind of hurts my feelings. I have shopped there and the coat I got I use 20 years later. Easy to spend a lot. I used to live 1 mile from that store and it waconvenient. Lots of desperate and greedy people out there. Funny people think things could actually be free though.Guess we need to sing "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" to cheer up.
Quote: Originally posted by mymonthlypicks on Oct 15, 2009
This is so Funny, True why such a low end coat factory I agree that should of open some eyes.
What's wrong with Burlington Coat Factory? I haven't been in one, in over 5 years, but what is so wrong with shopping there? Do you only shop at high-class, Beverly Hills stores?
Quote: Originally posted by ThatScaryChick on Oct 16, 2009
What's wrong with Burlington Coat Factory? I haven't been in one, in over 5 years, but what is so wrong with shopping there? Do you only shop at high-class, Beverly Hills stores?
i dont think he/she was poking fun at those who shop at Burlington Coat Factory. But the fact that a lottery winner would shop at a place that sells clothes that have been sent to them due to excess inventory, lack of sales and appeal. Hence why he/she said "open your eyes" to those who were tricked by this crazy woman - since things didnt look right from the start.
Quote: Originally posted by mymonthlypicks on Oct 15, 2009
This is so Funny, True why such a low end coat factory I agree that should of open some eyes.
It's obvious, those who choose to shop at Burlingtons are price conscious and trying to save money while shopping for their needs. I would thing that going to this story to help people who are obviously trying to save a buck, who can't afford or can only afford to shop there would be the people who can use a helping hand.
And, if she had won that amount of money, the money would have gone along away and helped more people then say helping some hobnob snob at Tiffany's.
Quote: Originally posted by MADDOG10 on Oct 15, 2009
No she didn't, Obama was supposed to write her a stimulas check for her vote, but hasn't gotten around to her, because he's jet setting around the globe with his Obamanites in tow...!
This woman needs help like the rest of this country.
I really would like to know what does he had to do with this. Do you think that he had to buy votes?
Quote: Originally posted by jeffrey on Oct 16, 2009
Wow, kind of hurts my feelings. I have shopped there and the coat I got I use 20 years later. Easy to spend a lot. I used to live 1 mile from that store and it waconvenient. Lots of desperate and greedy people out there. Funny people think things could actually be free though.Guess we need to sing "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" to cheer up.
"
This is so Funny, True why such a low end coat factory I agree that should of open some eyes."
A long time ago, there was this one little leather coat mall store where they had everything at 25% off. I was only able to buy one. I have never found another sale like that for a brown leather bomber jacket. Very hard to find high quality brown heavy leather bomber jackets on sale, most stores don't carry them or are too expensive. I doubt even Burlington's has such a sale.
Quote: Originally posted by mjwinsmith on Oct 16, 2009
Why would they not be in a position to criticize Maddogg?
The last time I checked this was America, Maddogg has a RIGHT to say what he wants, and people have a RIGHT to criticize or applaud his view.
obviously you didnt comphrehend my post.
the very fact that she deducted nonsensical conclusion from maddogg's post disqualifies her from criticizing maddogg. obviously she has the inherent right to say whatever she wants, but sometimes i like to think that if you are going to say something so fatuous by even slightly accusing someone of being racist than I believe you have already lost the argument and maddogg doenst have to respond to her comment.
I have never seen a President be blamed for so many things that he has NO CONTROL over. Stimulus checks? Blame Bush. People feel now that they have a "right" to them.
As far as the lady goes, she was very wicked and very wild. I guess she figured may as well go out with a bang or rather I should say riot.
Shopping frugally does not mean that one cannot afford the "best". It means that they have different priorities.
Quote: Originally posted by joshuakim on Oct 16, 2009
obviously you didnt comphrehend my post.
the very fact that she deducted nonsensical conclusion from maddogg's post disqualifies her from criticizing maddogg. obviously she has the inherent right to say whatever she wants, but sometimes i like to think that if you are going to say something so fatuous by even slightly accusing someone of being racist than I believe you have already lost the argument and maddogg doenst have to respond to her comment.
It's obvious you drew a conclusion for someone else, my point being that Maddogg and she has a right to say what they want and to debate those points without someone else talking for them.
She had a valid point to ask, and for Maddogg to respond, let Maddogg reply as to what he meant since it was he she asked the question.
Who are you to say she does'nt have the right to question Maddogg or anyone else?
Quote: Originally posted by Littleoldlady on Oct 16, 2009
I have never seen a President be blamed for so many things that he has NO CONTROL over. Stimulus checks? Blame Bush. People feel now that they have a "right" to them.
As far as the lady goes, she was very wicked and very wild. I guess she figured may as well go out with a bang or rather I should say riot.
Shopping frugally does not mean that one cannot afford the "best". It means that they have different priorities.
I have never seen a President be blamed for so many things as Bush! The lady does need help and so do all those that stole from the business.
PS, People now feel they have a "right" to healthcare thanks to Hillery and Obama!
This is VERY frightening, unfunny, and unentertaining! It is a very expensive theft to Burlington Coat Factory! It will also be very expensive to clean up after several of the people purposely stepped on and damaged very valuable coats, etc. that were strewn in their path, rather than picking up the item they personally dropped (or the person nearby) to keep it from destruction/damage.
Consequently, I wonder if this purposely mass theft and vandalization will cause several employees to be laid-off from BCF, and/or if BCF will choose to end its lease and move to a neighborhood that it believes/hopes will be safer to conduct fair business in? I wonder if any of these thieves will gain the GIFT of remorse and return their stolen items in salable condition? I wonder if the police department's employees will be able to regain trust or confidence in the human population that lives within a few mile radus of that BCF greately abused store and employees again (I presume that several of BCF's employees -- and probably some police officers -- presant, are going to need fear counseling after this polarized mass theft)?
I too don't see what President Obama has to with a woman creating chaos with a fake giveaway from the lottery prize. I;m glad she was apprhended and pray she pays for what she's done. If she's not mentally fit then I pray she gets the help she needs. The people who took merchandise shoud be prosecuted as the law allow for theft.
Whild Healthcare was not a right given to us in the Constitution, there should be options which allows for people to obtain affordable coverage and not have to lose their homes or retirement savings due to a major illness. I love this country with its faults, freedom also means choices. So Mandatory Purchase of Plan is uncontinuable.
Quote: Originally posted by Grovel on Oct 17, 2009
Yes, let's just let the poor people die becuase they can not afford to go to the doctor. It's their fault that they are so poor in the first place.
Sorry, but in America that kind of thing doesn't happen. Emergency rooms are required by law to treat anyone who doesn't have health insurance.
You see, in this country we already have a great health care system in which nobody "dies" (your words) for lack of health insurance.
In other countries with government-run healthcare, like Canada and England, people DO DIE because they either have to wait so long for their procedures, or else the government says they won't get a life-saving drug because they are too old and "not worth it".
People who actually take 5 minutes to learn about the system from someone other than a shill for the Democrat party knows what I'm saying is true.
1: Burlington Coat factory or any business that allows large purchases will do so with the credit card pre-approved or the money in hand. This was in part Burlingtons duty to control this antic. That in part was their undoing.
2: I sincerely do think this lady was mentally unstable
Off Topic:
Footnote: True that hospital must save lives, but the reality is: The bill STILL must be paid by the patient who cant afford it! That is where the problem lays. So yes from a person who is a NON Republican I do have research and experience from the revenue to treat a vegabond and the reality that the bill will be absorbed as a loss. Which is NOT good for any business to sustain. SO yes arent americans lucky that ALL can be treated yet only a few can pay. Gotta Love free enterprise.
-it is amazing how much anger was raised up by one woman's foolish stunt, even spawning a debate on Healthcare. This chaos is caused by people who *didn't* win. Not everyone is as well-educated as we are on this board, and the woman (I am speculating) maybe upset that people were shunning her for whatever reasons, and figured that if she won the Lottery people would suddenly love her. It would have been possible for her to be generous with whatever credit she had by giving *anonymously* to various charities, food banks, etc. There are ways to bless other people and glorify God (isn't that the purpose?) without putting the attention on oneself.
I remember a few years ago I brought a coat to BCF which was in good condition except for a broken zipper, for a donation program. They were rude to me about it and said they only want brand-new coats and only for a limited time and because I was busy I missed the deadline. I put it in Goodwill and have not since returned to BCF.
I don't agree with the wild speculation that BCF would have massive layoffs etc. because of the incident at the Store. Maybe some of those coats will go to the truly needy. Maybe God moves in ways we don't understand. Or maybe people are right and she deserves the electric chair because of the chain reaction she caused that will ultimately unravel spacetime itself.
By the way... if people truly like you it shouldn't be because you have money. I always say that if and when I win, I will remember those who were there for me when I was poor.
When I first saw this, I thought, oh noooo! Then I said, how gullible can people be. How gullible could the cashiers be???!!!!! When the first coat was rung up, I would have asked for payment then, NO IF ANDS OR BUTS! The fiasco would have been nipped in the bud, right then! Greed on all parts. Store managers and the customers. I hope the theives get caught. That was so stupid of them to steal the store merchandise and destroy it. So what will the next big stunt be. This lady needs to be made responsible for the limo driver and other stuff she did. Betcha she would not think her pranks were so funny then.
Quote: Originally posted by CAL-LottoPlayer on Oct 15, 2009
"Brown, 44, was arrested on three outstanding warrants for aggravated menacing, misuse of a 911 system and causing false alarms. She was jailed late Wednesday, but no charges had been filed against her related to the coat store chaos pending a mental health evaluation."
It's obvious to me she's not running on all cylinders. This story is so funny. It's incredible that people would have the nerve to run out of the store with coats they didn't pay for. Apparently, if someone says they'll pay for your coat and they don't, people still think they can walk out with a coat they didn't pay for.
BTW, this has happened twice before under similar circumstances: Two people in different states ran a hoax Craigslist ad saying anyone who showed up at an address could take anything they wanted. In the first case, the house was in a rural area and people came and cleaned out the house while the owner while still there. When the owner insisted nothing was being given away, people took things anyway. When police arrived, they had to chase down people driving away with the owner's possessions. In the second case, a disgruntled former renter (or relative) ran a Craigslist ad for a vacant house. Because the owner was not there, people literally took everything including the kitchen sink!
I remember that incident . And the man was there for crying out loud. He needed an oozie to protect his home. Would the greedy have gotten the point then? Just oozie shots to the legs; should live to remember what greed can get you into.
Quote: Originally posted by Littleoldlady on Oct 16, 2009
I have never seen a President be blamed for so many things that he has NO CONTROL over. Stimulus checks? Blame Bush. People feel now that they have a "right" to them.
As far as the lady goes, she was very wicked and very wild. I guess she figured may as well go out with a bang or rather I should say riot.
Shopping frugally does not mean that one cannot afford the "best". It means that they have different priorities.
. I have been off for awhile, but when I read some of these posts, I said to myself. Is this a POLITICAL site???? If so, I DO NOT NEED it. I am not here to read opinions regarding political party affiliations or the bashing of one party against the other . Do Democrats or Republicans oppose the lottery. Anything else. Political affiliation and bashing is a not too good of a thing. You never know when a very powerful person in a party you post against, could be the very person that makes sure that "lotteries" ...well, you get my point. Whew! Let me find something else about the LOTTERY!
Quote: Originally posted by mylollipop on Oct 18, 2009
. I have been off for awhile, but when I read some of these posts, I said to myself. Is this a POLITICAL site???? If so, I DO NOT NEED it. I am not here to read opinions regarding political party affiliations or the bashing of one party against the other . Do Democrats or Republicans oppose the lottery. Anything else. Political affiliation and bashing is a not too good of a thing. You never know when a very powerful person in a party you post against, could be the very person that makes sure that "lotteries" ...well, you get my point. Whew! Let me find something else about the LOTTERY!
I'm in total agreement with you--I thought this is a post for lottery players to discuss THE LOTTERY!!! At least I thought so...anyway I just read awful article and this is the worst lotto story I have ever read since I joined this post and knowing human nature, it certainly won't be the last.
1. It's not about the ER wait as much as rationing, the fear that if there is 1 dose and 2 dying people, who gets the dose? Like we're doing even now with H1N1 vaccines.
2. If everyone stops fighting I'll go to Burlington Coat Factory the next time I win the P3 or P4 box (or otherwise) and buy a new coat being I could use one.
3. I do agree that this stunt would be dangerous and wrong *even if* the person had actually won and wanted to be generous. If someone entered BCF while I was there and said such I would get out of there immediately! Maybe better just to randomly hand out BCF gift certificates and only sparingly at that to not call too much attention.
Sorry, but in America that kind of thing doesn't happen. Emergency rooms are required by law to treat anyone who doesn't have health insurance.
You see, in this country we already have a great health care system in which nobody "dies" (your words) for lack of health insurance.
In other countries with government-run healthcare, like Canada and England, people DO DIE because they either have to wait so long for their procedures, or else the government says they won't get a life-saving drug because they are too old and "not worth it".
People who actually take 5 minutes to learn about the system from someone other than a shill for the Democrat party knows what I'm saying is true.
I have lived in countries where people didn't have to pay for health care so I know the difference. No one will believe in health care reform until is is them who losing their property and savings. Emergency room care is catastrophic care. And for your information, many emergency rooms now charge on the spot. The last time I went to one, I had to pay 50 dollars BEFORE they would treat me! I had insurance. The $50.00 was to help pay for all of the others who don't have health care!
I believe the question that has to be answered is this: Do we abide by the Constitution or not?
Our Constitution is the law of the land and the foundation of our republic. If we have to abrogate it every time somebody "feels it's not fair" then it serves no purpose.
Other countries have different forms of governance and healthcare and we have ours which has served us well for over 200 years.
It is my personal opinion that people who don't want to accept the constraints of our Constitution should find a country with one more to their liking and go there.
Patriotic Americans show respect for our Constitution and many of us have taken a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend it.
And we will. By any means necessary. Against enemies both foreign AND domestic.
Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Oct 18, 2009
I believe the question that has to be answered is this: Do we abide by the Constitution or not?
Our Constitution is the law of the land and the foundation of our republic. If we have to abrogate it every time somebody "feels it's not fair" then it serves no purpose.
Other countries have different forms of governance and healthcare and we have ours which has served us well for over 200 years.
It is my personal opinion that people who don't want to accept the constraints of our Constitution should find a country with one more to their liking and go there.
Patriotic Americans show respect for our Constitution and many of us have taken a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend it.
And we will. By any means necessary. Against enemies both foreign AND domestic.
Let’s talk about your precious Constitution. It once held that certain “People” were only worth 3/5th of an ordinary American (White). That’s not fair, so the people of America amended that part of it so that ALL people would be treated equally. According to you those worth only 3/5th should have kept their mouths shut and accepted the status quo. That’s no country to me, that’s a lie, a sham, and a joke of a Nation supposedly valuing Truth and Justice for all.
Oh, and by the way one of those 3/5th of a person rose up to become President of the United States, proving just how great this country is despite the past which many on your side of the issues want to return to.
Quote: Originally posted by mjwinsmith on Oct 18, 2009
Let’s talk about your precious Constitution. It once held that certain “People” were only worth 3/5th of an ordinary American (White). That’s not fair, so the people of America amended that part of it so that ALL people would be treated equally. According to you those worth only 3/5th should have kept their mouths shut and accepted the status quo. That’s no country to me, that’s a lie, a sham, and a joke of a Nation supposedly valuing Truth and Justice for all.
Oh, and by the way one of those 3/5th of a person rose up to become President of the United States, proving just how great this country is despite the past which many on your side of the issues want to return to.
WOW. You took a patriotic post and twisted it into something racist. WTF is wrong with people today?
Quote: Originally posted by BuyLow on Oct 18, 2009
WOW. You took a patriotic post and twisted it into something racist. WTF is wrong with people today?
You can't stand the Truth can you? What's racist about the truth. The point to note is that the Constitution is not perfect, that's why it gets amended from time time according to the times and to what the PEOPLE want.
the issue with free stuff, is more of a major core belief
entitlement, really?
people think they have a entitlement to a % of the cash i make,
i refer to ofc everyone who votes these people in, congress/obama
who then point a gun and say where taking this much form you! or else
the latest entitlement type of people have taken over our govt by their votes
putting in people who really think i should have to pay for other people and their needs and their mistakes!
what do i mean by mistakes? i tell you
i don't buy healthcare reform they talk about,
if someone wants to eat at mcdonalds their whole adult life and trash their body ,
not work out,
not make sure their getting all the things their body needs form fruit and other nutrition
thats their mistake, they should suffer for it, when they get diseasy of any kind, they should pay for their own mistakes
the day they need someone else to pay their health care bills, it wont be form me
ever thing else is a belief i should support others to these people
but make no mistake, right now, people are more forced on getting free stuff then taking care of them selfs, when it comes to health vs free stuff
how many adults are of sound mind and have a great health, by their own hands/mind
we have more sick people, then healthy people, know why, cease a really healthy person, does the work for them selfs
and the sick people are lazy, or just dumb or something that makes them make countless mistakes towards their health
when i need money, or things, i can go out and get it, by brains or my hands, its no issue to me,
here my point
about how crazy these people are, lets use their logic and say:
Dental care is a right!
Wait a sec, you mean i can eat countless candy, not flossing atfer ever meal
kill my teeth, and get it all fixed by your wallet,, SWEET
see my point, i just look at all of you entitlement people with a face of, are you mental?????
to others needing handouts, i have no shame in turning them down, maybe its just me,
but something in my gut kills me inside if i ever have to ask for handouts, and i mean really kills me inside
, its just not the kind of person i am
its like am at war with people who demand these things form others , govt is a weapon, and their using this weapon with a ruthless intent to harm my wallet and ever other wallet of anyone who supports them selfs, and just wants to be left alone!
if i want to help people, i can, its called a charity,
and the only charity's i support are kid ones, know why, cease am not a heatless jerk, i know kids are not adults and they cant help them selfs sometimes on ever thing,
teach them how to fish, but dont catch the fish for them kind of helping logic :P
however if you start a charity that trys to give everyone some kind of health care, you will Fail, why, cease a smart person wont give money to idiots, it wont meet their funding needed
hell i guest i could say the lotto hopes kids also LOL
when they use the line no one forces you to live here,
so hand over the money or get out if you don't want to pay our demands
am grinning thinking
i didn't know i was a born part slave to everyone in the united states when i was born here
cease am slave to no one, and whatever i make in life is Mine, not yours
my kids/grindkids if i ever have any, wont be paying for your kids/grandkids healthcare cease they eat junkfood all their lifes , etc
hell i wish all the dumb entitlement people would die off, save me a lot of energy form defending my self and my wallet form them LOL
fed your kids right, teach them right and maybe we would not have a Healthcare issue in the first place
am all for charity, but govt is not a charity,
its a evil weapon, know where my freedoms come form, not form others, or the govt, they come form my self, i have a a weapon and i use it to defend my self,
know why my home is not being looted right now, cease something bad will happen to them if they try
the lotto is the prefact charity at its core, raise money for whatever
NO one forces me to buy tickets, i buy them cease I WANT TO
i would not need the army, if the people as a whole was allowed to own not just guns, but any weapon on earth,and trust me, this govt would be put in its place if its fear of their lifes is 100x what it is now, i be like IRS, i got a wmd , do you really want to try and take my money, yup they be put in their place alright.
govt not the master, the people in congress have no power, but what is given them form the people is their power
all power comes form the people, i know for a fact, when i was born , others didn't own a part of my future, so to me, the people of the united states, dont have a right to my money, nor can they own any part of what i make, onless i give that right over
people can give all their money they want to the govt, am not stoping them
being the must armed pop in the world, is what makes us as free as are, learn form history, armless people get inslaved Ever time, and yes i count any loss of freedom as inslaved
if entitlement people had their way, we be helpless sleep , and trust me, form history, i know howentitlement govt ends, in massive debt, and if their using paper money, kiss it goodbye, they will print it to its worthless
o wait, we are already in the middle of doing that, great now the money supply it self is going to be destoryed byentitlement people, i just can't get away form these idiots..........
i swear the only thing that will protect us form these entitlement people is to get a gun and say Make me give you free stuff with a gun in their face,
as thats the last defence i see having down the road if we keep going down this path our nation is in
Sorry Joshua but I did not read all of your post. But Mcdonald's is not the only reason people get sick. Last time I check a burger did not cause cancer.
Don't you think it is a little screwed up then when people get sick, their health insurance decides to drop them? What is the point of having it in the first place?
Now if you wanted to tax people who where over weight or smoked cigarettes, I would agree with you.
Don't you think it is a little screwed up then when people get sick,their health insurance decides to drop them? What is the point ofhaving it in the first place??
alright, i tell you
No i dont
health insurance - KEY WORD insurance
if your in a car crash, and your the ONE THAT MADE IT HAPPEN, you was at fault , HELL YES i would not cover you
same thing for health, if a earthquake happens, you get hurt, i cover your ass for all costs,
if someone did a hit and run and no one could find the runner, i cover you for all health care costs
IF YOU FREAKING SMOKE and get lung cancer., i WILL NOT COVER YOUR ASS, if you are fat, i will not cover your ass for anything disease related to food you eat
you are what you eat, like it or not, ever thing adds up over time!
, am not going to cover your fat ass for anything food related, lifestyle related
if you don't want to live a super healthy life, and put the effort into making sure you dont get any PREVENTABLE diseasy's
then i sure as hell wont cover your ass if i was a insurance COMPANY,
thats why i hate the current laws already on the books,
and what they are wanting to do to healhcare, and you are the perfect one proving my point
what you are in fact saying, you dont want the insurance company not covering you anymore if you made a mistake, o MY GOD, i should not have to pay for my own mistakes!
o and yes, must causes of cancer are diet/lifestyle related, I said must,not all
if you get a insane amount of UV form the sun and get skin cancer, thats sure lifestyle related also LOL
its called wear some uv reflective clothing
people don't ever want to take the blame for stuff they do to them selfs!
100s of years ago, people blamed witchcraft on countless stuff
, 100s of years later , people are sure being stupid,
i can point to the countless wars/govts/laws and people getting them self sick to prove it, we are living in the dark ages of human stupid
their is a great saying, that bears repeating here
The problem with health insurance now, is it does not make a difference if you caused your own illness/injury or if it was no fault of their own.
Like I said if you want to tax people who are living a life style that is effecting their health Iwould have no problem with that. But I still think we need universal health care.
Quote: Originally posted by BuyLow on Oct 18, 2009
WOW. You took a patriotic post and twisted it into something racist. WTF is wrong with people today?
Thanks BuyLow, but it's so typical of the response from the far left. Anytime you disagree with them, you're attacked and labeled as a racist or a redneck or any of a litany of other pejoratives. They're never wrong.
Some people just want to live in a nanny state where they feel secure feeding from the public trough under the watchful eye of Big Brother. They don't care who has to keep the trough full as long as it's not them. Just make sure the trough is full and they're happy.
They don't care how hard you worked for what's yours; they demand a piece of it and they will vote for people who vow to confiscate it from you. For some reason they feel entitled to your money if you have more than them. They call it "being fair."
They fancy that it's the "government" taking care of them and they don't care that the government doesn't have any money. They rely on the government to take money away from productive members of society and give it to them - the slackers.
It doesn't bother them a bit to see this country being destroyed as long as somebody else pays their way.
Quote: Originally posted by BuyLow on Oct 18, 2009
WOW. You took a patriotic post and twisted it into something racist. WTF is wrong with people today?
Well, one of the things that's wrong with some of them is that they can't undertand what they read, even when it's extremely simple. Somebody pointed out that when it was first enacted the constitution didn't treat all people as if they were equal to other people. Anyone who thinks that pointing that out is racist clearly has a serious problem in undertanding what they read.
Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Oct 18, 2009
Thanks BuyLow, but it's so typical of the response from the far left. Anytime you disagree with them, you're attacked and labeled as a racist or a redneck or any of a litany of other pejoratives. They're never wrong.
Some people just want to live in a nanny state where they feel secure feeding from the public trough under the watchful eye of Big Brother. They don't care who has to keep the trough full as long as it's not them. Just make sure the trough is full and they're happy.
They don't care how hard you worked for what's yours; they demand a piece of it and they will vote for people who vow to confiscate it from you. For some reason they feel entitled to your money if you have more than them. They call it "being fair."
They fancy that it's the "government" taking care of them and they don't care that the government doesn't have any money. They rely on the government to take money away from productive members of society and give it to them - the slackers.
It doesn't bother them a bit to see this country being destroyed as long as somebody else pays their way.
Slackers.
You said the Constution should not be changed. He simply pointed out that the Constution use to say that black people were only 3/5 of a white person. The point he was trying to make is the Constution has to change to fit the time.
Memory and math, something missing on this thread. For all you race baiters groveling around, learn math and remember our president is half black and half white. So that means he was never 3/5 of anything since he was 5/5 American theoretically when he was born in Hawaii..
Or.............. he could be 5/5 Kenyan and not be a president at all.
Or if the race baiter in you, is still in you, 3/5 X 1/2 = 3/10 3/10+ 1/2 = 8/10 white or 4/5ths white according to the old 3/5ths rule of whiteness.
Do you see how race baiting math works and remembering he isn't "ALL" black?
Quote: Originally posted by Grovel on Oct 19, 2009
You said the Constution should not be changed. He simply pointed out that the Constution use to say that black people were only 3/5 of a white person. The point he was trying to make is the Constution has to change to fit the time.
I never mentioned ANYTHING about race. But that's what the topic always shifts too when you disagree with liberals these days. You can't critique the president without being called a racist.
NATURALLY slavery was wrong and calling any human being 3/5ths of a person is wrong (It was the North that wanted to count them as less than human, by the way).
It is NATURALLY and rightfully so that that inclusion necessitated changing the Constitution.
My point is that contrary to the beliefs of libs, the Constitution is NOT a living document. It was not meant to be altered at the whims and fancies of each generation. If that is to be the case, then why even have a Constitution? Just throw it out and have chaos. Let every little group of ne'erdowells, miscreants and malcontents demand that somebody else pay their bills. The problem with that concept is that eventually you run out of other people's money in numbers necessary to keep all the slackers happy.
I am sorry to inform you that there is no provision in the Constitution for other people to pay your bills. It is unconstitutional for the government to demand that we pay your bills, medical or otherwise, and it is an outrage that they intend to illegally confiscate our money to do so.
The latest poll shows that only 34% of people (the slackers) support this government takeover of healthcare; 53% oppose it and the rest don't know what day it is half the time. Regardless of the will of the people, the democrats (socialists) are determined to shove it down our throats.
Thomas Jefferson warned us about tyrants gaining control like this. He said that when it happens that the people should take up arms and throw them out. In fact, he said that it may have to be done every twenty years or so. He knew and understood the absolute corruptibility of power.
Sorry, but in America that kind of thing doesn't happen. Emergency rooms are required by law to treat anyone who doesn't have health insurance.
You see, in this country we already have a great health care system in which nobody "dies" (your words) for lack of health insurance.
In other countries with government-run healthcare, like Canada and England, people DO DIE because they either have to wait so long for their procedures, or else the government says they won't get a life-saving drug because they are too old and "not worth it".
People who actually take 5 minutes to learn about the system from someone other than a shill for the Democrat party knows what I'm saying is true.
Sorry, people lose out everyday in not getting the full amount of healthcare that they may need or require because they cannot afford it.
The U.S. has better resources and 10 fold more Drs and specialist than those other countries that you mention. You're comparing apples to oranges.
I've seen people get delayed healthcare services because they carry one of the more popular HMO's...come into an emergency room in a hospital that isn't on that HMO's approval list. Have to wait for approval from that HMO to have services in that hospital or get transferred out to one of their approved facilities.
This is not something that may happen in the future or in some other country... it happens here, in the USA!!
I wish all of you who think you know all of the details about the healthcare system could actually work in the system and see all that goes on, then maybe you could make some intelligent comments about it.
If you can't pay for services in some States, you get transferred to what is called a charity hospital. Heck, I've seen patients brought in from one speciality hospital and I know that it's a dump because the patient's Medicare short-term benefits have run out. Suddenly, the facility finds all kinds of reasons not to take the person back and now that chronically ill person is sitting in an Acute care facility waiting for a less desirable nursing home bed to open up.
Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Oct 19, 2009
I never mentioned ANYTHING about race. But that's what the topic always shifts too when you disagree with liberals these days. You can't critique the president without being called a racist.
NATURALLY slavery was wrong and calling any human being 3/5ths of a person is wrong (It was the North that wanted to count them as less than human, by the way).
It is NATURALLY and rightfully so that that inclusion necessitated changing the Constitution.
My point is that contrary to the beliefs of libs, the Constitution is NOT a living document. It was not meant to be altered at the whims and fancies of each generation. If that is to be the case, then why even have a Constitution? Just throw it out and have chaos. Let every little group of ne'erdowells, miscreants and malcontents demand that somebody else pay their bills. The problem with that concept is that eventually you run out of other people's money in numbers necessary to keep all the slackers happy.
I am sorry to inform you that there is no provision in the Constitution for other people to pay your bills. It is unconstitutional for the government to demand that we pay your bills, medical or otherwise, and it is an outrage that they intend to illegally confiscate our money to do so.
The latest poll shows that only 34% of people (the slackers) support this government takeover of healthcare; 53% oppose it and the rest don't know what day it is half the time. Regardless of the will of the people, the democrats (socialists) are determined to shove it down our throats.
Thomas Jefferson warned us about tyrants gaining control like this. He said that when it happens that the people should take up arms and throw them out. In fact, he said that it may have to be done every twenty years or so. He knew and understood the absolute corruptibility of power.
Thomas Jefferson was a wise man.
Are you slow? He was just trying to prove his point that the Constitution had to change to fit the times. If you don't want to use race as an example how about the right to bear arms or the right to freedom of speech.
The point is the Constitiuion can and has change to give the citizens of the United States rights that they did not have before. We are trying to say that health care should be a right now.
Quote: Originally posted by Grovel on Oct 20, 2009
Are you slow? He was just trying to prove his point that the Constitution had to change to fit the times. If you don't want to use race as an example how about the right to bear arms or the right to freedom of speech.
The point is the Constitiuion can and has change to give the citizens of the United States rights that they did not have before. We are trying to say that health care should be a right now.
Am I slow? Whoa.
Listen real close now junior, you just might learn something.
You have a right to free speech under the First Amendment - But I don't have to buy your soapbox!
You have a right to bear arms under the Second Amendment - But I don't have to buy your guns!
You already have a right to get any kind of medical care you want - But I don't have to pay for it!
Show me where in the Constitution it says that I have to pay for anything that you have rights to!
You want to amend the Constitution because you want a handout? Get a job and support yourself!
We don't need to amend the Constitution to give you a "right" to healthcare. You already have that right.
You just want somebody else to pay your way. Well, the American people don't want to pay your way.
If you want somebody else to pay for everything for you I suggest you find a country that does that.
The majority of the American people like the healthcare system we have and we don't want to cater to
every slacker that comes along thinking he's entitled to everybody else's money for some insane reason.
Nobody owes you anything. You don't have a "right" to other people's money. Get over it.
And get used to the fact that your hero will be a one-termer. People are waking up to the horrendous mistake they made.
Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Oct 19, 2009
I never mentioned ANYTHING about race. But that's what the topic always shifts too when you disagree with liberals these days. You can't critique the president without being called a racist.
NATURALLY slavery was wrong and calling any human being 3/5ths of a person is wrong (It was the North that wanted to count them as less than human, by the way).
It is NATURALLY and rightfully so that that inclusion necessitated changing the Constitution.
My point is that contrary to the beliefs of libs, the Constitution is NOT a living document. It was not meant to be altered at the whims and fancies of each generation. If that is to be the case, then why even have a Constitution? Just throw it out and have chaos. Let every little group of ne'erdowells, miscreants and malcontents demand that somebody else pay their bills. The problem with that concept is that eventually you run out of other people's money in numbers necessary to keep all the slackers happy.
I am sorry to inform you that there is no provision in the Constitution for other people to pay your bills. It is unconstitutional for the government to demand that we pay your bills, medical or otherwise, and it is an outrage that they intend to illegally confiscate our money to do so.
The latest poll shows that only 34% of people (the slackers) support this government takeover of healthcare; 53% oppose it and the rest don't know what day it is half the time. Regardless of the will of the people, the democrats (socialists) are determined to shove it down our throats.
Thomas Jefferson warned us about tyrants gaining control like this. He said that when it happens that the people should take up arms and throw them out. In fact, he said that it may have to be done every twenty years or so. He knew and understood the absolute corruptibility of power.
Thomas Jefferson was a wise man.
"I am sorry to inform you that there is no provision in the Constitutionfor other people to pay your bills. It is unconstitutional for thegovernment to demand that we pay your bills, medical or otherwise, andit is an outrage that they intend to illegally confiscate our money todo so."
You're confused. For the most part, people aren't asking the government to make anyone else pay their bills. They're asking the government to provide a(nother) service. Not only is there absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that, providing services to the people is pretty much the only reason to have a government.
I seen that story, I know it was a Hoax, and I knew something was wrong with that lady. I don't blame any one of those people for getting mad about it, but they didn't have to loot the Store. It wasn't the Stores fault. People do some crazy things.
Quote: Originally posted by MADDOG10 on Oct 15, 2009
No she didn't, Obama was supposed to write her a stimulas check for her vote, but hasn't gotten around to her, because he's jet setting around the globe with his Obamanites in tow...!
This woman needs help like the rest of this country.
what was that about?????
THE president is being accused of everything -even some statements made by a women walking into a store for low income consumers
gee wizz .......Republicans need a life .... I love this President , he is doing his best ....lets face it , no one elese could do anybetter ;
Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on Oct 20, 2009
"I am sorry to inform you that there is no provision in the Constitutionfor other people to pay your bills. It is unconstitutional for thegovernment to demand that we pay your bills, medical or otherwise, andit is an outrage that they intend to illegally confiscate our money todo so."
You're confused. For the most part, people aren't asking the government to make anyone else pay their bills. They're asking the government to provide a(nother) service. Not only is there absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that, providing services to the people is pretty much the only reason to have a government.
Floyd,
You said that people aren't asking the government to make anyone else pay their bills; that they just want them to provide another service. OK, given the fact that the government doesn't have any money other than that they confiscate from other people; who then is going to pay for this "service?"
The Constitution was written in a way to be a constraint on federal power. The founders knew the wiles of despotism and tyranny. They wanted to ensure that future generations weren't subjected to it. They respected state's rights over federal dominance and included language in the Constitution ensuring it (see the 10th Amendment).
To trash the Constitution because a small segment of society wants a handout is an outrage.
You also said that providing services to the people is pretty much the only reason to have a government. That flies in the face of the rugged individualism that made this country great. The pioneers weren't looking for a nanny, they were proud people. They considered it shameful to take charity or get a handout. Those were the people that wrote our Constitution and formed our government in those days. To change the intent of the foundational document these people wrote for the transient whims of some MTV generation slackers is not something most Americans would take lightly or accept.
The federal government is there primarily to guarantee our sovereignty, protect our borders, regulate trade, provide for our national defense and such. They are not there to confiscate and redistribute wealth. They are not there to make sure everybody is happy and nobody gets more than anybody else. It's not their job and the Constitution forbids it.
We are a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic is not a social agency.
The day may come when the slackers are in the majority and they will be able to burn the Constitution and put everybody on welfare. But they're not there yet and it's not looking too good for them in the next elections. Patriotic Americans are waking up to the tyranny of this administration. They see that it's socialism in it's infancy and they don't want any part of it. Thank God.
A majority of states have recently filed assertions of their sovereignty and if worse comes to worst things could get real interesting in the near future. And what that portends may be exactly what we need if worse does come to worst. Personally though, I think the next elections (2010 and 2012) will correct this insane course we've been on for the past 9 months. Then the current president can replace Jimmy Carter as the worst president in our history.
Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Oct 20, 2009
Floyd,
You said that people aren't asking the government to make anyone else pay their bills; that they just want them to provide another service. OK, given the fact that the government doesn't have any money other than that they confiscate from other people; who then is going to pay for this "service?"
The Constitution was written in a way to be a constraint on federal power. The founders knew the wiles of despotism and tyranny. They wanted to ensure that future generations weren't subjected to it. They respected state's rights over federal dominance and included language in the Constitution ensuring it (see the 10th Amendment).
To trash the Constitution because a small segment of society wants a handout is an outrage.
You also said that providing services to the people is pretty much the only reason to have a government. That flies in the face of the rugged individualism that made this country great. The pioneers weren't looking for a nanny, they were proud people. They considered it shameful to take charity or get a handout. Those were the people that wrote our Constitution and formed our government in those days. To change the intent of the foundational document these people wrote for the transient whims of some MTV generation slackers is not something most Americans would take lightly or accept.
The federal government is there primarily to guarantee our sovereignty, protect our borders, regulate trade, provide for our national defense and such. They are not there to confiscate and redistribute wealth. They are not there to make sure everybody is happy and nobody gets more than anybody else. It's not their job and the Constitution forbids it.
We are a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic is not a social agency.
The day may come when the slackers are in the majority and they will be able to burn the Constitution and put everybody on welfare. But they're not there yet and it's not looking too good for them in the next elections. Patriotic Americans are waking up to the tyranny of this administration. They see that it's socialism in it's infancy and they don't want any part of it. Thank God.
A majority of states have recently filed assertions of their sovereignty and if worse comes to worst things could get real interesting in the near future. And what that portends may be exactly what we need if worse does come to worst. Personally though, I think the next elections (2010 and 2012) will correct this insane course we've been on for the past 9 months. Then the current president can replace Jimmy Carter as the worst president in our history.
your wrong ........the government has given Trillions to almost every nation on earth .....the federal contracts for the new jet fighter proves it and what about the contract to build the new missele defence system in Poland ?? there were only a few American Business involved and then there is the current new cargo and refuling air ships those are not to be built here either :
So what is American you should be asking its not the majoity of the Media -radio-tv-newspappers their owned by rupert Murdoch he is not an American and neither is the majiority of the largest Drug Co. ......so whats this statement by you saying???
(The Constitution was written in a way to be a constraint on federal power..)..........
.And the Republicans have had this whitehouse for over 20 years , and the congress ( reagan- Ford-Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr. all had their time and lets include Nixion in there ........all but Ford had 8 years apeice :
YOU and others need to explain where and why you spent the NATIONS WEALTH................WHY NOT AMERICANS THIS TIME ???!!!!
Quote: Originally posted by computerhead723 on Oct 21, 2009
your wrong ........the government has given Trillions to almost every nation on earth .....the federal contracts for the new jet fighter proves it and what about the contract to build the new missele defence system in Poland ?? there were only a few American Business involved and then there is the current new cargo and refuling air ships those are not to be built here either :
So what is American you should be asking its not the majoity of the Media -radio-tv-newspappers their owned by rupert Murdoch he is not an American and neither is the majiority of the largest Drug Co. ......so whats this statement by you saying???
(The Constitution was written in a way to be a constraint on federal power..)..........
.And the Republicans have had this whitehouse for over 20 years , and the congress ( reagan- Ford-Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr. all had their time and lets include Nixion in there ........all but Ford had 8 years apeice :
YOU and others need to explain where and why you spent the NATIONS WEALTH................WHY NOT AMERICANS THIS TIME ???!!!!
The Constitution mandates providing for a common defense.
It does not mandate nor allow taking money from me and giving it to you (sorry about that).
As I said previously, there are countries that operate in that fashion and if that is what you prefer you are free to go live under that kind of system.
The vast majority of Americans are not slackers and aren't looking for a handout. We will not change the Constitution for a small minority of whiners.
And complaining about the Republicans' national debt after the Democrats just quadrupled it is a little anticlimactic, isn't it?
If there was a point in your reference to Rupert Murdoch and the Drug Companies I'm sorry, I missed it.
Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Oct 20, 2009
Floyd,
You said that people aren't asking the government to make anyone else pay their bills; that they just want them to provide another service. OK, given the fact that the government doesn't have any money other than that they confiscate from other people; who then is going to pay for this "service?"
The Constitution was written in a way to be a constraint on federal power. The founders knew the wiles of despotism and tyranny. They wanted to ensure that future generations weren't subjected to it. They respected state's rights over federal dominance and included language in the Constitution ensuring it (see the 10th Amendment).
To trash the Constitution because a small segment of society wants a handout is an outrage.
You also said that providing services to the people is pretty much the only reason to have a government. That flies in the face of the rugged individualism that made this country great. The pioneers weren't looking for a nanny, they were proud people. They considered it shameful to take charity or get a handout. Those were the people that wrote our Constitution and formed our government in those days. To change the intent of the foundational document these people wrote for the transient whims of some MTV generation slackers is not something most Americans would take lightly or accept.
The federal government is there primarily to guarantee our sovereignty, protect our borders, regulate trade, provide for our national defense and such. They are not there to confiscate and redistribute wealth. They are not there to make sure everybody is happy and nobody gets more than anybody else. It's not their job and the Constitution forbids it.
We are a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic is not a social agency.
The day may come when the slackers are in the majority and they will be able to burn the Constitution and put everybody on welfare. But they're not there yet and it's not looking too good for them in the next elections. Patriotic Americans are waking up to the tyranny of this administration. They see that it's socialism in it's infancy and they don't want any part of it. Thank God.
A majority of states have recently filed assertions of their sovereignty and if worse comes to worst things could get real interesting in the near future. And what that portends may be exactly what we need if worse does come to worst. Personally though, I think the next elections (2010 and 2012) will correct this insane course we've been on for the past 9 months. Then the current president can replace Jimmy Carter as the worst president in our history.
"They respected state's rights over federal dominance"
That's true as written, but I'm not sure if what you wrote reflects your intended meaning. The Constitution was intended to limit the power of the federal government and make sure it couldn't trample state rights, but it was also intended to restrict state's rights. The result is a document that over time has done a fairly good job of balancing power between the states and the federal government.
"To trash the Constitution because a small segment of society wants a handout is an outrage."
I'd have to agree with that general concept, but since it's not happening, why point it out? You may not like it, but what's being done in regards to health care is entirely permissible under the constitution. You may not like how the constitution is interpreted, but the current interpretation goes back to before TV existed, nevermind MTV and the MTV generation.
"The federal government is there primarily ..."
Those are services. The government does for the people what the people can't (conveniently) do for themselves.
"They are not there to confiscate and redistribute wealth. <snip> It's not their job and the Constitution forbids it."
That's not the intent, but any time the government collects taxes and uses them for anything that wealth is "redistributed". Not only is it not forbidden by the constitution, it's a power that's specifically granted to the federal government. That "redistribution" works both ways. Some people who start with little get a bit more. Some people who already have a lot get a lot more. Maybe you recognize names like Cheney and Haliburton? For the most part, the middle class is always on the losing end. I'd say that health care is one issue where they have a pretty good shot of coming out even.
Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on Oct 22, 2009
"They respected state's rights over federal dominance"
That's true as written, but I'm not sure if what you wrote reflects your intended meaning. The Constitution was intended to limit the power of the federal government and make sure it couldn't trample state rights, but it was also intended to restrict state's rights. The result is a document that over time has done a fairly good job of balancing power between the states and the federal government.
"To trash the Constitution because a small segment of society wants a handout is an outrage."
I'd have to agree with that general concept, but since it's not happening, why point it out? You may not like it, but what's being done in regards to health care is entirely permissible under the constitution. You may not like how the constitution is interpreted, but the current interpretation goes back to before TV existed, nevermind MTV and the MTV generation.
"The federal government is there primarily ..."
Those are services. The government does for the people what the people can't (conveniently) do for themselves.
"They are not there to confiscate and redistribute wealth. <snip> It's not their job and the Constitution forbids it."
That's not the intent, but any time the government collects taxes and uses them for anything that wealth is "redistributed". Not only is it not forbidden by the constitution, it's a power that's specifically granted to the federal government. That "redistribution" works both ways. Some people who start with little get a bit more. Some people who already have a lot get a lot more. Maybe you recognize names like Cheney and Haliburton? For the most part, the middle class is always on the losing end. I'd say that health care is one issue where they have a pretty good shot of coming out even.
"but it (the Constitution) was also intended to restrict state's rights."
Absolutely not. The feds were given very specific powers. Those not delegated specifically to the federal government were reserved for the states. The Tenth Amendment makes that very clear. The states are supreme in most any given circumstance. The fact that the feds have been running roughshod over states' rights for years does not negate that fact. Case in point, the convolution and criminal misuse of the Commerce Clause.
Some people have the backbone to stand up to the criminal intervention by the feds in state matters though. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona ia one of them. They told him to stop arresting illegal aliens. He told them to pound sand. No federal authority can tell a Sheriff what to do in his own county and own state. A lot of people just don't know the limitations of federal law and accept federal bullying. A lot of people are waking up and getting informed though. I met a lot of them in the 9/12 march on DC.
"balancing power between the states and the federal government"
There was never an intention or even reference to balancing power. Again, check out the Tenth Amendment. The feds have a specific job assignment given to them by the states. And they haven't been doing that job very well unless you consider boondoggle after fiasco some measure of success.
"since it's not happening (trashing the Constitution), why point it out?"
That was in response to one person saying that the Constitution needs to be changed to fit the mood of the times. No, the Constitution is not being changed to please the slackers who feel entitled to other people's money but the fact they want it to is an outrage.
"what's being done in regards to health care is entirely permissible under the constitution."
No it's not. Period. Show me where it says they can force me to buy anything I don't want and then fine and imprison me if I don't do it. That's sheer nonsense.
"The government does for the people what the people can't (conveniently) do for themselves."
That is not their job and they cannot legally do it under the Constitution.
"any time the government collects taxes and uses them for anything that wealth is "redistributed"."
Yes it is, illegally. That crime is brought to you by the Sixteenth Amendment, brought to you by a corrupt government in 1913 and it should be repealed. The fact remains however that even given the 16th Amendment, the money should be used within the parameters of power allocated to the federal government. It's not.
"Maybe you recognize names like Cheney and Haliburton?"
OK, now I know where you're coming from. You left out "Bush lied, people died" though. Floyd, LOL, there's no hope for ya!
Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Oct 22, 2009
"but it (the Constitution) was also intended to restrict state's rights."
Absolutely not. The feds were given very specific powers. Those not delegated specifically to the federal government were reserved for the states. The Tenth Amendment makes that very clear. The states are supreme in most any given circumstance. The fact that the feds have been running roughshod over states' rights for years does not negate that fact. Case in point, the convolution and criminal misuse of the Commerce Clause.
Some people have the backbone to stand up to the criminal intervention by the feds in state matters though. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona ia one of them. They told him to stop arresting illegal aliens. He told them to pound sand. No federal authority can tell a Sheriff what to do in his own county and own state. A lot of people just don't know the limitations of federal law and accept federal bullying. A lot of people are waking up and getting informed though. I met a lot of them in the 9/12 march on DC.
"balancing power between the states and the federal government"
There was never an intention or even reference to balancing power. Again, check out the Tenth Amendment. The feds have a specific job assignment given to them by the states. And they haven't been doing that job very well unless you consider boondoggle after fiasco some measure of success.
"since it's not happening (trashing the Constitution), why point it out?"
That was in response to one person saying that the Constitution needs to be changed to fit the mood of the times. No, the Constitution is not being changed to please the slackers who feel entitled to other people's money but the fact they want it to is an outrage.
"what's being done in regards to health care is entirely permissible under the constitution."
No it's not. Period. Show me where it says they can force me to buy anything I don't want and then fine and imprison me if I don't do it. That's sheer nonsense.
"The government does for the people what the people can't (conveniently) do for themselves."
That is not their job and they cannot legally do it under the Constitution.
"any time the government collects taxes and uses them for anything that wealth is "redistributed"."
Yes it is, illegally. That crime is brought to you by the Sixteenth Amendment, brought to you by a corrupt government in 1913 and it should be repealed. The fact remains however that even given the 16th Amendment, the money should be used within the parameters of power allocated to the federal government. It's not.
"Maybe you recognize names like Cheney and Haliburton?"
OK, now I know where you're coming from. You left out "Bush lied, people died" though. Floyd, LOL, there's no hope for ya!
Let's just agree to disagree.
Our government should protect its people. I am in favor of cutting government workers wages and salaries. And very much in favor of not allowing any pensions, especially for Congress. I am in favor of getting rid of all that junk they do and put that money towards health care.
SINCE YOU MISSED MY POINT ALL THE WAY LET ME CLAIRIFY IT BETTER :
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE GIVEN AWAY TRILLIONS OF US DOLLARS OVERSEAS , :
US CONTRACTS FUND ALMOST EVERYNATION ON EARTH :
US BUSINESS DIDN'T GET THE FEDERAL DOLLARS THANKS TO THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE DOMINATED THE GOVERNMENT FOR OVER 20 YEARS ; Rupert murdoch owns most of the media in this nation Fox is just one :
Media Corporation
Insurance & Pharmaceutical Companies
Disney/ABC
Proctor & Gamble
GE/NBC
Chubb, Novartis, Proctor & Gamble, Merck
Time Warner
AIG, Health Cap, Paratek Pharmaceuticals
Fox/News Corp
GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Hybritech
New York Times Co.
First Health Group, Eli Lilly
Tribune Co.
Abbott Labs, Middelbrook Pharmaceuticals
Gannett/USA Today
Chubb
now what does Fox news and republicans have in common ????? a professional group of liars and businessmen who have robbed this nation of its entire wealth ..your worried about the crumbs from the masters table: do you know what a trilllion dollars
is and what nations your party has sent our money too ???/
Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Oct 21, 2009
The Constitution mandates providing for a common defense.
It does not mandate nor allow taking money from me and giving it to you (sorry about that).
As I said previously, there are countries that operate in that fashion and if that is what you prefer you are free to go live under that kind of system.
The vast majority of Americans are not slackers and aren't looking for a handout. We will not change the Constitution for a small minority of whiners.
And complaining about the Republicans' national debt after the Democrats just quadrupled it is a little anticlimactic, isn't it?
If there was a point in your reference to Rupert Murdoch and the Drug Companies I'm sorry, I missed it.
Jack Abernethy is the CEO of Fox Television Stations.
Fox Television is a group of 35 television stations in 26 markets throughout the United States owned and operated by the Fox Broadcasting Company, which is owned by News Corporation, the company built by Rupert Murdoch.
Together, the Fox television stations reach about 45% of the population of the USA.
Fox Television Stations Group, or FTSG, is one of the largest owned-and-operated network groups in the United States. It was formed in April 1986 from a collection of former Metromedia-owned TV stations.
By virtue of granting certain powers to the federal government, some states' rights are restricted or prohibited axiomatically. States' rights are also restricted by most of the Bill of Rights. You can also look at the history behind the constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation, and the adoption of the Virginia plan over the New Jersey Plan.
Tell me, though, if the state's rights aren't restricted, do you think the states can force you to buy something you don't want and then fine you? Does it really matter whether it's done at the state or federal level?
In most states, if you own a car you're required to have auto insurance. Some municipalities have passed laws that require gun ownership. Closer to our debate, Massachusetts has a law that requires residents to carry health insurance that meets minimum state requirements. I don't think any of those laws specifically require that you "buy" those things, but how else do most people get them? It's not that the constitution allows those things, it's that it doesn't prohibit them. If an act isn't prohibited it is allowed, and the only question is whether something can be done by the states, the federal government, or both.
The real issue, and the one where you seem to have your head in the sand, is that the federal government isn't requiring you to buy anything. They collect taxes and spend the money as they see fit. It's well established law that individuals don't get to pick and choose which government programs they pay for; you get to pay for them all. As for the 16th amendment, we can worry about that after you and yourfriends decide whether or not we actually landed on the moon.
I agree that the commerce clause (don't forget the general welfare and necessary and reasonable clauses) has been used for things it shouldn't, but the powers of the constitution are what SCOTUS says they are. Bummer that those founding fathers limited the powers of the federal government and then put them in charge of deciding how to interpret those powers, huh? If only the laws they interpret were enacted by people whose job is to represent the states. Oh. Never mind.
As for Cheney and Haliburton, do you disagree that they've both pocketed money from each of us? I just picked them because they're well known and have both made a lot of money from government contracts recently. If it makes you any happier, I'm pretty sure we've both put money in ACORN's pockets, too, though I don't think they've gotten rich. I'm not sure how, but I'll bet there's some federal program that helped put that $500 million in Teresa Heinz Kerry's pockets, too.
Quote: Originally posted by computerhead723 on Oct 22, 2009
SINCE YOU MISSED MY POINT ALL THE WAY LET ME CLAIRIFY IT BETTER :
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE GIVEN AWAY TRILLIONS OF US DOLLARS OVERSEAS , :
US CONTRACTS FUND ALMOST EVERYNATION ON EARTH :
US BUSINESS DIDN'T GET THE FEDERAL DOLLARS THANKS TO THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE DOMINATED THE GOVERNMENT FOR OVER 20 YEARS ; Rupert murdoch owns most of the media in this nation Fox is just one :
Media Corporation
Insurance & Pharmaceutical Companies
Disney/ABC
Proctor & Gamble
GE/NBC
Chubb, Novartis, Proctor & Gamble, Merck
Time Warner
AIG, Health Cap, Paratek Pharmaceuticals
Fox/News Corp
GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Hybritech
New York Times Co.
First Health Group, Eli Lilly
Tribune Co.
Abbott Labs, Middelbrook Pharmaceuticals
Gannett/USA Today
Chubb
now what does Fox news and republicans have in common ????? a professional group of liars and businessmen who have robbed this nation of its entire wealth ..your worried about the crumbs from the masters table: do you know what a trilllion dollars
is and what nations your party has sent our money too ???/
s ???
I read your clarification:
"SINCE YOU MISSED MY POINT ALL THE WAY LET ME CLAIRIFY IT BETTER :
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE GIVEN AWAY TRILLIONS OF US DOLLARS OVERSEAS , :
US CONTRACTS FUND ALMOST EVERYNATION ON EARTH :
US BUSINESS DIDN'T GET THE FEDERAL DOLLARS THANKS TO THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE DOMINATED THE GOVERNMENT FOR OVER 20 YEARS ; Rupert murdoch owns most of the media in this nation Fox is just one :"
You may need to further clarify because I still don't get your point.
1) I am not a Republican. I don't defend their actions. I consider them the lesser of two evils and have felt forced to vote for them in the past only in an effort to keep the
the nutjob Dems out. Repubs talk a good game at times but they don't keep their word once they're in office.
2) You stated in a previous post that we have given trillions to nearly every nation on earth. That's simply not true.
3) You stated that US contracts fund almost every nation on earth. That's simply not true.
4) You said US businesses didn't get the federal dollars thanks to Republicans. What federal dollars were they supposed to get and for what purpose?
5) What in the world does Rupert Murdoch have to do with anything we're talking about?
6) What in the world is your list of drug companies and news media companies all about? Is there a point there somewhere?
Jack Abernethy is the CEO of Fox Television Stations.
Fox Television is a group of 35 television stations in 26 markets throughout the United States owned and operated by the Fox Broadcasting Company, which is owned by News Corporation, the company built by Rupert Murdoch.
Together, the Fox television stations reach about 45% of the population of the USA.
Fox Television Stations Group, or FTSG, is one of the largest owned-and-operated network groups in the United States. It was formed in April 1986 from a collection of former Metromedia-owned TV stations.
Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on Oct 24, 2009
"I met a lot of them in the 9/12 march on DC."
"there's no hope for ya!"
Back at ya, I guess.
By virtue of granting certain powers to the federal government, some states' rights are restricted or prohibited axiomatically. States' rights are also restricted by most of the Bill of Rights. You can also look at the history behind the constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation, and the adoption of the Virginia plan over the New Jersey Plan.
Tell me, though, if the state's rights aren't restricted, do you think the states can force you to buy something you don't want and then fine you? Does it really matter whether it's done at the state or federal level?
In most states, if you own a car you're required to have auto insurance. Some municipalities have passed laws that require gun ownership. Closer to our debate, Massachusetts has a law that requires residents to carry health insurance that meets minimum state requirements. I don't think any of those laws specifically require that you "buy" those things, but how else do most people get them? It's not that the constitution allows those things, it's that it doesn't prohibit them. If an act isn't prohibited it is allowed, and the only question is whether something can be done by the states, the federal government, or both.
The real issue, and the one where you seem to have your head in the sand, is that the federal government isn't requiring you to buy anything. They collect taxes and spend the money as they see fit. It's well established law that individuals don't get to pick and choose which government programs they pay for; you get to pay for them all. As for the 16th amendment, we can worry about that after you and yourfriends decide whether or not we actually landed on the moon.
I agree that the commerce clause (don't forget the general welfare and necessary and reasonable clauses) has been used for things it shouldn't, but the powers of the constitution are what SCOTUS says they are. Bummer that those founding fathers limited the powers of the federal government and then put them in charge of deciding how to interpret those powers, huh? If only the laws they interpret were enacted by people whose job is to represent the states. Oh. Never mind.
As for Cheney and Haliburton, do you disagree that they've both pocketed money from each of us? I just picked them because they're well known and have both made a lot of money from government contracts recently. If it makes you any happier, I'm pretty sure we've both put money in ACORN's pockets, too, though I don't think they've gotten rich. I'm not sure how, but I'll bet there's some federal program that helped put that $500 million in Teresa Heinz Kerry's pockets, too.
BTW, a gay poet?
Floyd,
With all due respect, after reading your post all I can say is that you're off the reservation, all over the map and quite possibly in a parallel universe. Check your coordinates.
1) There is nothing axiomatic about restriction or prohibition of states rights. The restrictions and prohibitions are all on the federal government and stated very clearly.
2) For you to say that the Bill of Rights restricts or even mentions restricting states rights is ludicrous. It's all about the individual rights of the people.
3) Yes, the states can require you to have insurance if that is what their constituency wants but the federal government cannot.
4) Tennessee experimented with socialized healthcare and it was a colossal failure and is being discontinued.
5) Because something isn't prohibited to the federal government does not mean that it is allowed (Tenth Amendment).
6) You're wrong about the federal government not requiring us to buy anything. Everyone will be required to buy insurance or face stiff fines and/or imprisonment. It will not be taken out of your taxes. You will be forced to buy it. But yes, you will also be taxed to pay for those on the public option (the slackers).
7) That's your crowd that thinks the moon landing was a hoax. They also think that Bush and Cheney blew up the towers and that there are Martians in Area 51.
8) I agree with you on ACORN; don't know about Teresa Heinz for sure.
9) As for Haliburton, there was simply no one conglomerate in the world that could handle the logistics of the tasks they've been given, especially Iraq. If you know of one you should let the government know because nobody else does.
10) To put this whole debate to rest I would advise you to read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. It explicitly details the powers given to the federal government. Then read the Tenth Amendment which explicitly details the scope and limits of those powers. It's very clear and precise.
Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Oct 24, 2009
I read your clarification:
"SINCE YOU MISSED MY POINT ALL THE WAY LET ME CLAIRIFY IT BETTER :
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE GIVEN AWAY TRILLIONS OF US DOLLARS OVERSEAS , :
US CONTRACTS FUND ALMOST EVERYNATION ON EARTH :
US BUSINESS DIDN'T GET THE FEDERAL DOLLARS THANKS TO THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE DOMINATED THE GOVERNMENT FOR OVER 20 YEARS ; Rupert murdoch owns most of the media in this nation Fox is just one :"
You may need to further clarify because I still don't get your point.
1) I am not a Republican. I don't defend their actions. I consider them the lesser of two evils and have felt forced to vote for them in the past only in an effort to keep the
the nutjob Dems out. Repubs talk a good game at times but they don't keep their word once they're in office.
2) You stated in a previous post that we have given trillions to nearly every nation on earth. That's simply not true.
3) You stated that US contracts fund almost every nation on earth. That's simply not true.
4) You said US businesses didn't get the federal dollars thanks to Republicans. What federal dollars were they supposed to get and for what purpose?
5) What in the world does Rupert Murdoch have to do with anything we're talking about?
6) What in the world is your list of drug companies and news media companies all about? Is there a point there somewhere?
well if ownning the top ten drug companies to the media is not clear as to the abuses that have drained our ecomony is not clear to a blind man then your lost in the hype :
sad but true...... the USA government and the majior us busn. have given trillions overseas corporations . the new fighter jets and the recent Poland- AIR DEFENCE SYSTEMS are just one example ....you need to look into the matter of who built what in re. military contracts ;
Quote: Originally posted by computerhead723 on Oct 26, 2009
well if ownning the top ten drug companies to the media is not clear as to the abuses that have drained our ecomony is not clear to a blind man then your lost in the hype :
sad but true...... the USA government and the majior us busn. have given trillions overseas corporations . the new fighter jets and the recent Poland- AIR DEFENCE SYSTEMS are just one example ....you need to look into the matter of who built what in re. military contracts ;
computerhead,
How about we just agree to disagree on that topic and go back to discussing the lottery and be friends?
Quote: Originally posted by rdgrnr on Oct 26, 2009
computerhead,
How about we just agree to disagree on that topic and go back to discussing the lottery and be friends?
rdgrnr
1
STATEMENT
OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS,
DISSENTING
Re: General Motors Corporation and Hughes Electronics, Corporation, Transferors
and The News Corporation Limited, Transferee, For Authority to Transfer
Control
Here we go again. Today the Commission demonstrates how serious -- and
seriously misguided -- it was when it voted on June 2 to eviscerate media concentration
protections. Presented with the opportunity to signal whether it intends to protect the
important goals of diversity, competition, and localism, or to allow instead ever greater
and more threatening levels of media consolidation, the majority flashes the green light
for the next great wave of media consolidation.
News Corp was already a media giant:
• In the U.S., News Corp. owns television stations reaching over 44 percent of
the country. (WNYW-5, New York; WWOR-TV-9, New York; KTTV-11,
Los Angeles; KCOP-13, Los Angeles; WFLD-32, Chicago; WPWR-TV-50,
Chicago; WTXF-TV-29, Philadelphia; WFXT-25, Boston; KDFW-4, Dallas;
KDFI-27, Dallas; WTTG-5, Washington, DC; WDCA-20, Washington, DC;
KMSP-TV-9, Minneapolis; WFTC-29, Minneapolis; WJBK-2, Detroit;
WAGA-5, Atlanta; WUTB-24, Baltimore; KRIV-26, Houston; KTXH-20,
Houston; WTVT-13, Tampa Bay; WRBW-65, Orlando; WOFL-35, Orlando;
WJW-8, Cleveland; KSAZ-TV-10, Phoenix; KUTP-45, Phoenix; KDVR-31,
Denver; KTVI-2, St. Louis; WITI-6, Milwaukee; WDAF-TV-4, Kansas City;
KSTU-13, Salt Lake City; WBRC-6, Birmingham; WHBQ-TV-13, Memphis;
WGHP-8, Greensboro; KTBC-7, Austin; WOGX-51, Ocala).
• In nine markets, it owns more than one television station (New York, Los
Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Washington, DC, Minneapolis, Houston, Orlando
and Phoenix).
• It owns a major national broadcast network (Fox).
• It owns numerous cable and DBS channels, including regional sports
networks across the country (among them FX, Fox News Channel, Fox Movie
Channel, Fox Sports, Fox Sports en Espagnol, National Geographic Channel,
Speed Channel).
• It owns the most widely used electronic program guide for navigating
television content (Gemstar-TV Guide).
• It owns newspapers, magazines, and publishing (including New York Post,
The Weekly Standard and HarperCollins Publishers).
2
• It owns studios (including Twentieth Century Fox, Searchlight, Fox
Television Studios, Twentieth Century Fox Television).
• It will now own a nationwide multi-channel direct broadcast satellite system
(DirecTV).
• And it will now also own a major fixed satellite service provider that carries
video broadcast and cable programming for delivery to distribution systems
(PanAmSat).
• This list constitutes News Corp’s major holdings in the United States. This
conglomerate also has massive media holdings in other nations spanning the
globe.
When is “Big Media” big enough? With spectrum always scarce and diversity
hanging by a thread, where is the logic -- where is the public interest benefit -- of giving
more and more media power to fewer and fewer players? In the end, it all comes back to
this: to putting too much power in one conglomerate’s hands and creating opportunities
for abuse that accompany such concentrated power. Any public interest benefits that may
potentially come about from this huge consolidation of commercial power are vastly
outweighed by the potential for significant harm to consumers, the industry and the
country. I therefore dissent from allowing this merger to go forward.
The majority seems to recognize that the agreement that the parties presented to
the Commission for approval was seriously flawed. But the majority’s strategy to apply
band-aids in several places to stem what is in fact a public interest hemorrhage did not –
because they could not -- work. This agreement was probably beyond repair. Certainly
the band-aids applied by the majority don’t fix it.
The Applicants point to several claimed public interest benefits of the proposed
merger. Yet, even the majority discounts all but two of these benefits as not supported by
the record. The majority relies on the potential public interest benefits of innovative
services that will be offered under News Corp.’s management and on additional markets
in which DirecTV will provide carriage for local television stations. As to the former, the
majority admits it is difficult to quantify, but points to the innovative service offerings
available on News Corp.’s satellite systems in other parts of the world which include
interactive sports betting and casinos. As to the claimed second benefit, the major DBS
providers have already been increasing their local station carriage for competitive reasons
and, as several commenters point out, DirecTV is altogether able to expand those
offerings without this merger.
The Order is even more telling in its handling of potential harms emanating from
this transaction. The majority finds that News Corp. has market power in its
programming services, that this transaction increases its ability and incentive to use its
market power to raise programming costs, and that these increases would ultimately be
3
passed on to consumers. All of the Commissioners appear to agree that, as proposed by
the Applicants, the harms of this transaction outweigh the benefits. In addition to my
belief that the conditions imposed in this Order are not adequate to address the harms
acknowledged by the majority, I am further concerned that the majority fails to
acknowledge other real and potential harms associated with the merger. These include:
• Media Concentration: Although the majority at least attempts to address the
harms of vertical integration, it dismisses outright horizontal integration harms
that can arise from allowing one company to own broadcast outlets across the
country and a nationwide multi-channel distribution system – an
unprecedented level of consolidation. Instead, the majority concludes that
broadcast outlets do not serve the same market as cable and DBS. The
majority further discounts any harms to localism or diversity, finding instead
that market forces will ensure adequate sources of information. To trust that
in the unforgiving environment of the market, the public interest will
somehow magically trump the urge to build power and profit is a leap of faith
that this Commissioner, for one, is unprepared to take. The majority ought to
know better. This is the same flawed logic we saw in the Commission’s June
2 decision. In addition, the majority fails to analyze the impact of this merger
on ensuring independent and diverse programming. Alleged economies of
scale do precious little to nurture program or viewpoint diversity.
Given the majority’s analysis, I am concerned that this merger is merely the
beginning of another wave of consolidation. News Corp. has indicated it may
continue growing by acquiring additional television duopolies and other
properties. Indeed, the majority apparently presumes that additional News
Corp. acquisitions of television stations, radio stations, and newspapers is in
the public interest under the Commission’s new bright-line media ownership
rules. And other Big Media conglomerates, encouraged by today’s decision,
will now feel emboldened or compelled to consolidate further. My service as
a Commissioner has taught me that the response to one company’s acquisition
is almost invariably another company’s request to grow bigger so that it can
“compete” and “survive.”
The majority’s conclusion that broadcast stations do not compete in the same
market as cable and DBS, along with its unwillingness closely to examine
harms to diversity and localism, make clear that this Commission has no
intention to slow, or even critically to examine, cross-platform mergers
between broadcast stations and cable or DBS systems.
• Community Standards and Indecency: Some have suggested that there may
be a link between increasing consolidation and increasing indecency on our
airwaves. As I traveled across this country holding hearings and attending
forums earlier this year, I heard time and again that ownership matters when it
comes to what is offered up to viewers and listeners, particularly to our
children. I am troubled that today’s decision comes on the heels of complaints
4
that News Corp. aired indecent material on the 2003 Billboard Music Awards
just last week. This is not the first instance of such viewer complaints against
News Corp. Many of the indecency complaints I have seen come into the
Commission involve stations owned by large media companies. I raise the
issue here not because of any specific broadcast program, but because the
Commission has refused to study the possible relationship between indecency
and media concentration. I believe such a study is relevant to decisions such
as the one we make today and that, indeed, we should not be making these
decisions until we have credibly considered the matter. As we allow media
conglomerates to grow ever larger, many Americans are concerned that the
race to the bottom will accelerate and that broadcaster consideration for local
community standards will continue to erode.
Yet, today, before we even consider these complaints or address the impact of
increasing consolidation on increasing indecency, we reward News Corp. with
a nationwide programming distribution system. And what will be the effect?
Will we see even more attempts to air progressively coarser content? As we
move towards more interactive programming, will we see gambling intrude
itself into our homes on DirecTV as News Corp. provides on its overseas
satellite system? Will we see wider distribution of shows that continue to
push the envelope of outrageousness even further?
• Increasing Consumer Rates: Applicants cite economic efficiencies that will
result from their agreement and claim that the merger will give them the scale
and scope to compete more effectively. There may well be some such
efficiencies, although the baleful tale of many recent high visibility corporate
mega-mergers does not provide much proof of commercial success. Be that
as it may, Applicants did not demonstrate that any of these alleged savings
would be passed on to consumers nor did they evince great enthusiasm for so
doing. It is telling that Applicants produced so little data as to how this
transaction could possibly discipline rising cable rates. The likelihood of its
doing so is so remote as to be invisible. Interestingly, just today news reports
tell us that our cable bills will be going up again on January 1, rising on
average 6.5 percent – this when the nation’s inflation rate is 1.8 percent!
Lower prices seldom ensue from industry combinations. When we approve a
transaction that further increases concentration in programming production
and distribution, it is reasonable to assume that we are setting the stage for
upward pressure on cable rates. An entirely plausible outcome of this
decision is escalating consumer rates for multi-channel services from both
cable systems and DirecTV. When faced with a similar scenario, the Federal
Trade Commission in the Time Warner/Turner merger adopted a benchmark
price index mechanism. Here, the majority dismisses such an approach,
adopting instead so-called baseball arbitration. I am not convinced that
arbitration has succeeded in bringing down costs in baseball. More to the
point, this is not baseball and it is surely not a game. Although the majority
allows the Commission to review the arbitration decisions, it then ties the
5
Commission’s hands by requiring us to choose between each party’s final
offer. This reduces the Commission’s obligation to protect the public interest
to a multiple choice test. Let’s be clear here: what the arbitrators will most
often be arbitrating are two companies’ proposals to raise rates. The only
question to be decided is how much rates will increase. Payment for higher
programming license fees will be borne, of course, by consumers.
Moreover, although the majority seems to recognize the possibility of
increased consumer rates from this level of consolidation, it inexplicably
provides a sunset for these conditions of six years. This sunset is adopted
without any explanation of why the majority expects these harms to be
resolved within that timeframe.
I am troubled by other aspects of this decision.
I am troubled by the lack of analysis on the foreign ownership implications of the
transaction. In section 310(b) of the Act, Congress adopted a broad provision that limits
the ability of foreign entities to own or operate parts of our communications system. This
foreign ownership restriction applies across a broad range of communications services.
For decades, the Commission applied these restrictions to DBS. Last year, with
inadequate justification, the Commission determined that the foreign ownership
restrictions in 310(b) should not apply to DBS. As a result, the majority, in approving
this deal under which News Corp., an Australian company, purchases control of a U.S.
DBS licensee, concludes that it need not consider the foreign ownership implications.
I am troubled by the majority’s failure to consider the impact of this merger on
minority communities. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus in a recent letter raised
numerous serious issues related to the negative impact of this merger on the Latino
community, on minority-owned independent programmers and on local and Latinofocused
programming. The majority fails to do justice to these concerns.
I am troubled that the Commission is approving this merger without resolving
issues specific to the Applicants that have been raised regarding service in Alaska and
Hawaii. Parties have filed complaints that DirecTV fails to provide reasonably
comparable packages of services to Alaska and Hawaii, as required by our rules. If these
companies are violating Commission rules, we should address these issues as part of our
public interest analysis.
Finally, I am troubled by the failure to clarify that DirecTV, or any other DBS
provider, may not discriminate against some local broadcasters by requiring consumers to
obtain a second dish to receive those broadcasters. In 1999, Congress passed the Satellite
Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA). That Act required that, if a provider carries
any local broadcast signals, it must carry all local broadcast signals, and must do so at a
nondiscriminatory price and in a nondiscriminatory manner. In 2002, Commissioner
Martin and I issued a joint statement making clear our view that a plan to require
6
consumers to obtain a second dish to receive only some of the local broadcast stations in
a market did not comply with the statute or Commission rules.
In sum, I simply cannot support the level of concentration by a single owner that
will result from this merger absent compelling public interest circumstances.
Unfortunately, I do not find that the potential public interest benefits of this transaction
outweigh the real and potential harms. This decision is the wrong decision – wrong for
the media industry, wrong for consumers, wrong for democracy in America.
The topic has gone so far off-base it's ridiculous, and this started when some moron somehow decided President Obama was partially to blame for what happened at the Burlington Coat Factory. How stupid are you anyway?
She hired a limousine and then went to a Burlington Coat Factory? That should tell you something right there!
This is so Funny, True why such a low end coat factory I agree that should of open some eyes.
It would have been even more insane if she actually had won the 1.5 million.
Giving $500 each to 1500 people would have taken most of her after tax winnings.
Just goes to show you that you don't have to win a lottery jackpot to experience the foolishness of winning one.
That is so sad. Some people will fall for anything. If it sounds too good to be true it probably is.
wow people are so gullible and watch way too much Television :
just who walks in a store and tell everyone they hit the lottery ?
people are STUPID ......
When I saw this on world news last night I thought, "how psychotic she looked." Did she not think of how much trouble she was getting herself into? But then I thought, maybe she had a dream that was so real, she actual thought she had won. OR She had the actual winning numbers on an old ticket and thought she actually won. OR
SHE WANTED ATTENTION!!
I pray that God helps her through what ever her problem is.
wow, just wow.
"Brown, 44, was arrested on three outstanding warrants for aggravated menacing, misuse of a 911 system and causing false alarms. She was jailed late Wednesday, but no charges had been filed against her related to the coat store chaos pending a mental health evaluation."
It's obvious to me she's not running on all cylinders.
This story is so funny. It's incredible that people would have the nerve to run out of the store with coats they didn't pay for. Apparently, if someone says they'll pay for your coat and they don't, people still think they can walk out with a coat they didn't pay for.
BTW, this has happened twice before under similar circumstances: Two people in different states ran a hoax Craigslist ad saying anyone who showed up at an address could take anything they wanted. In the first case, the house was in a rural area and people came and cleaned out the house while the owner while still there. When the owner insisted nothing was being given away, people took things anyway. When police arrived, they had to chase down people driving away with the owner's possessions. In the second case, a disgruntled former renter (or relative) ran a Craigslist ad for a vacant house. Because the owner was not there, people literally took everything including the kitchen sink!
All I can say is "Wow...".
The whole thing is crazy!
According to her daughter, the woman is mentally ill and went off her medication.
http://www.breitbart.tv/womans-lie-about-lottery-win-triggers-riot-in-ohio-store/
LOL such a sense of entitlement, lets loot and wreck someones hard earned business.
oh its so funny, but so sad.
No she didn't, Obama was supposed to write her a stimulas check for her vote, but hasn't gotten around to her, because he's jet setting around the globe with his Obamanites in tow...!
This woman needs help like the rest of this country.
When anything appears to good to be true ..... it is 99.9% of the time.
What does Obama have to do with this? Is it because she's black?
That lady should be put away for a long time for pulling a stunt like that she's lucky that no one got hurt!
Wow, kind of hurts my feelings. I have shopped there and the coat I got I use 20 years later. Easy to spend a lot. I used to live 1 mile from that store and it waconvenient. Lots of desperate and greedy people out there. Funny people think things could actually be free though.
Guess we need to sing "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" to cheer up.
What's wrong with Burlington Coat Factory? I haven't been in one, in over 5 years, but what is so wrong with shopping there? Do you only shop at high-class, Beverly Hills stores?
seriously you inferred that ^^^^ from his post?
i dont think you are in a position to criticize maddogg's post.
i dont think he/she was poking fun at those who shop at Burlington Coat Factory. But the fact that a lottery winner would shop at a place that sells clothes that have been sent to them due to excess inventory, lack of sales and appeal. Hence why he/she said "open your eyes" to those who were tricked by this crazy woman - since things didnt look right from the start.
LOL'' this was the funniest joke of all, this woman has dellusion of grandeur.
I read this skit for my daughter and husband and [ LOL] was thinking the same thing,
how gullible and naive some people are, this lady is crazy, she put her life in danger she should
be lock up in the mental institution. Those people that continue stealing after find out that was a hoax
should go to prison, they are criminal World dummiest idiot's.[ LOL LOL LOL]
Why would they not be in a position to criticize Maddogg?
The last time I checked this was America, Maddogg has a RIGHT to say what he wants, and people have a RIGHT to criticize or applaud his view.
Amazing but stupid
It's obvious, those who choose to shop at Burlingtons are price conscious and trying to save money while shopping for their needs. I would thing that going to this story to help people who are obviously trying to save a buck, who can't afford or can only afford to shop there would be the people who can use a helping hand.
And, if she had won that amount of money, the money would have gone along away and helped more people then say helping some hobnob snob at Tiffany's.
Folks.........you just can't make this type shiite up. This made me ROFLMAO!!!!
I really would like to know what does he had to do with this. Do you think that he had to buy votes?
lol, when ppl find she doesn't pay, they probably stampede her to death and the store owner wants to strangle her
"
This is so Funny, True why such a low end coat factory I agree that should of open some eyes."
A long time ago, there was this one little leather coat mall store where they had everything at 25% off. I was only able to buy one. I have never found another sale like that for a brown leather bomber jacket. Very hard to find high quality brown heavy leather bomber jackets on sale, most stores don't carry them or are too expensive. I doubt even Burlington's has such a sale.
obviously you didnt comphrehend my post.
the very fact that she deducted nonsensical conclusion from maddogg's post disqualifies her from criticizing maddogg. obviously she has the inherent right to say whatever she wants, but sometimes i like to think that if you are going to say something so fatuous by even slightly accusing someone of being racist than I believe you have already lost the argument and maddogg doenst have to respond to her comment.
I have never seen a President be blamed for so many things that he has NO CONTROL over. Stimulus checks? Blame Bush. People feel now that they have a "right" to them.
As far as the lady goes, she was very wicked and very wild. I guess she figured may as well go out with a bang or rather I should say riot.
Shopping frugally does not mean that one cannot afford the "best". It means that they have different priorities.
What is up with Ohio? I wouldn't be surprised if this person is also taking boxing lessons from Elicia Battle!
Anyway, even if I win, I wouldn't be in a limo unless I were going to a funeral!
It would be something like a Jeep Cherokee.
I do need a new coat though...
It's obvious you drew a conclusion for someone else, my point being that Maddogg and she has a right to say what they want and to debate those points without someone else talking for them.
She had a valid point to ask, and for Maddogg to respond, let Maddogg reply as to what he meant since it was he she asked the question.
Who are you to say she does'nt have the right to question Maddogg or anyone else?
I have never seen a President be blamed for so many things as Bush! The lady does need help and so do all those that stole from the business.
PS, People now feel they have a "right" to healthcare thanks to Hillery and Obama!
I am sorry, I agree with them..they do have a right to reasonable healthcare costs. No one should lose their home because they get sick.
This is VERY frightening, unfunny, and unentertaining! It is a very expensive theft to Burlington Coat Factory! It will also be very expensive to clean up after several of the people purposely stepped on and damaged very valuable coats, etc. that were strewn in their path, rather than picking up the item they personally dropped (or the person nearby) to keep it from destruction/damage.
Consequently, I wonder if this purposely mass theft and vandalization will cause several employees to be laid-off from BCF, and/or if BCF will choose to end its lease and move to a neighborhood that it believes/hopes will be safer to conduct fair business in? I wonder if any of these thieves will gain the GIFT of remorse and return their stolen items in salable condition? I wonder if the police department's employees will be able to regain trust or confidence in the human population that lives within a few mile radus of that BCF greately abused store and employees again (I presume that several of BCF's employees -- and probably some police officers -- presant, are going to need fear counseling after this polarized mass theft)?
+1.
Last time I checked the Constitution I could not find a right to healthcare, let alone cheap healthcare.
No, I really don't think any such right exists, nor should it.
Yes, let's just let the poor people die becuase they can not afford to go to the doctor. It's their fault that they are so poor in the first place.
I too don't see what President Obama has to with a woman creating chaos with a fake giveaway from the lottery prize. I;m glad she was apprhended and pray she pays for what she's done. If she's not mentally fit then I pray she gets the help she needs. The people who took merchandise shoud be prosecuted as the law allow for theft.
Whild Healthcare was not a right given to us in the Constitution, there should be options which allows for people to obtain affordable coverage and not have to lose their homes or retirement savings due to a major illness. I love this country with its faults, freedom also means choices. So Mandatory Purchase of Plan is uncontinuable.
ADIOS
Sorry, but in America that kind of thing doesn't happen. Emergency rooms are required by law to treat anyone who doesn't have health insurance.
You see, in this country we already have a great health care system in which nobody "dies" (your words) for lack of health insurance.
In other countries with government-run healthcare, like Canada and England, people DO DIE because they either have to wait so long for their procedures, or else the government says they won't get a life-saving drug because they are too old and "not worth it".
People who actually take 5 minutes to learn about the system from someone other than a shill for the Democrat party knows what I'm saying is true.
Back to topic-
1: Burlington Coat factory or any business that allows large purchases will do so with the credit card pre-approved or the money in hand. This was in part Burlingtons duty to control this antic. That in part was their undoing.
2: I sincerely do think this lady was mentally unstable
Off Topic:
Footnote: True that hospital must save lives, but the reality is: The bill STILL must be paid by the patient who cant afford it! That is where the problem lays. So yes from a person who is a NON Republican I do have research and experience from the revenue to treat a vegabond and the reality that the bill will be absorbed as a loss. Which is NOT good for any business to sustain. SO yes arent americans lucky that ALL can be treated yet only a few can pay. Gotta Love free enterprise.
-it is amazing how much anger was raised up by one woman's foolish stunt, even spawning a debate on Healthcare. This chaos is caused by people who *didn't* win. Not everyone is as well-educated as we are on this board, and the woman (I am speculating) maybe upset that people were shunning her for whatever reasons, and figured that if she won the Lottery people would suddenly love her. It would have been possible for her to be generous with whatever credit she had by giving *anonymously* to various charities, food banks, etc. There are ways to bless other people and glorify God (isn't that the purpose?) without putting the attention on oneself.
I remember a few years ago I brought a coat to BCF which was in good condition except for a broken zipper, for a donation program. They were rude to me about it and said they only want brand-new coats and only for a limited time and because I was busy I missed the deadline. I put it in Goodwill and have not since returned to BCF.
I don't agree with the wild speculation that BCF would have massive layoffs etc. because of the incident at the Store. Maybe some of those coats will go to the truly needy. Maybe God moves in ways we don't understand. Or maybe people are right and she deserves the electric chair because of the chain reaction she caused that will ultimately unravel spacetime itself.
By the way... if people truly like you it shouldn't be because you have money. I always say that if and when I win, I will remember those who were there for me when I was poor.
When I first saw this, I thought, oh noooo! Then I said, how gullible can people be. How gullible could the cashiers be???!!!!! When the first coat was rung up, I would have asked for payment then, NO IF ANDS OR BUTS! The fiasco would have been nipped in the bud, right then! Greed on all parts. Store managers and the customers. I hope the theives get caught. That was so stupid of them to steal the store merchandise and destroy it. So what will the next big stunt be. This lady needs to be made responsible for the limo driver and other stuff she did. Betcha she would not think her pranks were so funny then.
I remember that incident . And the man was there for crying out loud. He needed an oozie to protect his home. Would the greedy have gotten the point then? Just oozie shots to the legs; should live to remember what greed can get you into.
I'm in total agreement with you--I thought this is a post for lottery players to discuss THE LOTTERY!!!
At least I thought so...anyway I just read awful article and this is the worst lotto story I have ever read since I joined this post and knowing human nature, it certainly won't be the last.
Please post one case were some one has died because they have waited in a emergency room in Canada or England.
Here is one where somone died in a US waiting room.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/01/waiting.room.death/index.html
That was directed to Todd. I forgot to quote him.
1. It's not about the ER wait as much as rationing, the fear that if there is 1 dose and 2 dying people, who gets the dose? Like we're doing even now with H1N1 vaccines.
2. If everyone stops fighting I'll go to Burlington Coat Factory the next time I win the P3 or P4 box (or otherwise) and buy a new coat being I could use one.
3. I do agree that this stunt would be dangerous and wrong *even if* the person had actually won and wanted to be generous. If someone entered BCF while I was there and said such I would get out of there immediately! Maybe better just to randomly hand out BCF gift certificates and only sparingly at that to not call too much attention.
I have lived in countries where people didn't have to pay for health care so I know the difference. No one will believe in health care reform until is is them who losing their property and savings. Emergency room care is catastrophic care. And for your information, many emergency rooms now charge on the spot. The last time I went to one, I had to pay 50 dollars BEFORE they would treat me! I had insurance. The $50.00 was to help pay for all of the others who don't have health care!
I believe the question that has to be answered is this: Do we abide by the Constitution or not?
Our Constitution is the law of the land and the foundation of our republic. If we have to abrogate it every time somebody "feels it's not fair" then it serves no purpose.
Other countries have different forms of governance and healthcare and we have ours which has served us well for over 200 years.
It is my personal opinion that people who don't want to accept the constraints of our Constitution should find a country with one more to their liking and go there.
Patriotic Americans show respect for our Constitution and many of us have taken a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend it.
And we will. By any means necessary. Against enemies both foreign AND domestic.
Let’s talk about your precious Constitution. It once held that certain “People” were only worth 3/5th of an ordinary American (White). That’s not fair, so the people of America amended that part of it so that ALL people would be treated equally. According to you those worth only 3/5th should have kept their mouths shut and accepted the status quo. That’s no country to me, that’s a lie, a sham, and a joke of a Nation supposedly valuing Truth and Justice for all.
Oh, and by the way one of those 3/5th of a person rose up to become President of the United States, proving just how great this country is despite the past which many on your side of the issues want to return to.
Well said mjwinsmith. Also to anyone who says to leave the country, if you don't like the way it is working you are free to leave as well.
WOW. You took a patriotic post and twisted it into something racist. WTF is wrong with people today?
You can't stand the Truth can you? What's racist about the truth. The point to note is that the Constitution is not perfect, that's why it gets amended from time time according to the times and to what the PEOPLE want.
God Bless America.
funny story
the issue with free stuff, is more of a major core belief
entitlement, really?
people think they have a entitlement to a % of the cash i make,
i refer to ofc everyone who votes these people in, congress/obama
who then point a gun and say where taking this much form you! or else
the latest entitlement type of people have taken over our govt by their votes
putting in people who really think i should have to pay for other people and their needs and their mistakes!
what do i mean by mistakes? i tell you
i don't buy healthcare reform they talk about,
if someone wants to eat at mcdonalds their whole adult life and trash their body ,
not work out,
not make sure their getting all the things their body needs form fruit and other nutrition
thats their mistake, they should suffer for it, when they get diseasy of any kind, they should pay for their own mistakes
the day they need someone else to pay their health care bills, it wont be form me
ever thing else is a belief i should support others to these people
but make no mistake, right now, people are more forced on getting free stuff then taking care of them selfs, when it comes to health vs free stuff
how many adults are of sound mind and have a great health, by their own hands/mind
we have more sick people, then healthy people, know why, cease a really healthy person, does the work for them selfs
and the sick people are lazy, or just dumb or something that makes them make countless mistakes towards their health
when i need money, or things, i can go out and get it, by brains or my hands, its no issue to me,
here my point
about how crazy these people are, lets use their logic and say:
Dental care is a right!
Wait a sec, you mean i can eat countless candy, not flossing atfer ever meal
kill my teeth, and get it all fixed by your wallet,, SWEET
see my point, i just look at all of you entitlement people with a face of, are you mental?????
to others needing handouts, i have no shame in turning them down, maybe its just me,
but something in my gut kills me inside if i ever have to ask for handouts, and i mean really kills me inside
, its just not the kind of person i am
its like am at war with people who demand these things form others , govt is a weapon, and their using this weapon with a ruthless intent to harm my wallet and ever other wallet of anyone who supports them selfs, and just wants to be left alone!
if i want to help people, i can, its called a charity,
and the only charity's i support are kid ones, know why, cease am not a heatless jerk, i know kids are not adults and they cant help them selfs sometimes on ever thing,
teach them how to fish, but dont catch the fish for them kind of helping logic :P
however if you start a charity that trys to give everyone some kind of health care, you will Fail, why, cease a smart person wont give money to idiots, it wont meet their funding needed
hell i guest i could say the lotto hopes kids also LOL
when they use the line no one forces you to live here,
so hand over the money or get out if you don't want to pay our demands
am grinning thinking
i didn't know i was a born part slave to everyone in the united states when i was born here
cease am slave to no one, and whatever i make in life is Mine, not yours
my kids/grindkids if i ever have any, wont be paying for your kids/grandkids healthcare cease they eat junkfood all their lifes , etc
hell i wish all the dumb entitlement people would die off, save me a lot of energy form defending my self and my wallet form them LOL
fed your kids right, teach them right and maybe we would not have a Healthcare issue in the first place
am all for charity, but govt is not a charity,
its a evil weapon, know where my freedoms come form, not form others, or the govt, they come form my self, i have a a weapon and i use it to defend my self,
know why my home is not being looted right now, cease something bad will happen to them if they try
the lotto is the prefact charity at its core, raise money for whatever
NO one forces me to buy tickets, i buy them cease I WANT TO
i would not need the army, if the people as a whole was allowed to own not just guns, but any weapon on earth,and trust me, this govt would be put in its place if its fear of their lifes is 100x what it is now, i be like IRS, i got a wmd , do you really want to try and take my money, yup they be put in their place alright.
govt not the master, the people in congress have no power, but what is given them form the people is their power
all power comes form the people, i know for a fact, when i was born , others didn't own a part of my future, so to me, the people of the united states, dont have a right to my money, nor can they own any part of what i make, onless i give that right over
people can give all their money they want to the govt, am not stoping them
being the must armed pop in the world, is what makes us as free as are, learn form history, armless people get inslaved Ever time, and yes i count any loss of freedom as inslaved
if entitlement people had their way, we be helpless sleep , and trust me, form history, i know how entitlement govt ends, in massive debt, and if their using paper money, kiss it goodbye, they will print it to its worthless
o wait, we are already in the middle of doing that, great now the money supply it self is going to be destoryed by entitlement people, i just can't get away form these idiots..........
i swear the only thing that will protect us form these entitlement people is to get a gun and say Make me give you free stuff with a gun in their face,
as thats the last defence i see having down the road if we keep going down this path our nation is in
/end freedom rant
Sorry Joshua but I did not read all of your post. But Mcdonald's is not the only reason people get sick. Last time I check a burger did not cause cancer.
Don't you think it is a little screwed up then when people get sick, their health insurance decides to drop them? What is the point of having it in the first place?
Now if you wanted to tax people who where over weight or smoked cigarettes, I would agree with you.
sorry Joshua, try a spell check before you post. doesn't make sense at all.
Don't you think it is a little screwed up then when people get sick,their health insurance decides to drop them? What is the point ofhaving it in the first place??
alright, i tell you
No i dont
health insurance - KEY WORD insurance
if your in a car crash, and your the ONE THAT MADE IT HAPPEN, you was at fault , HELL YES i would not cover you
same thing for health, if a earthquake happens, you get hurt, i cover your ass for all costs,
if someone did a hit and run and no one could find the runner, i cover you for all health care costs
IF YOU FREAKING SMOKE and get lung cancer., i WILL NOT COVER YOUR ASS, if you are fat, i will not cover your ass for anything disease related to food you eat
you are what you eat, like it or not, ever thing adds up over time!
, am not going to cover your fat ass for anything food related, lifestyle related
if you don't want to live a super healthy life, and put the effort into making sure you dont get any PREVENTABLE diseasy's
then i sure as hell wont cover your ass if i was a insurance COMPANY,
thats why i hate the current laws already on the books,
and what they are wanting to do to healhcare, and you are the perfect one proving my point
what you are in fact saying, you dont want the insurance company not covering you anymore if you made a mistake, o MY GOD, i should not have to pay for my own mistakes!
o and yes, must causes of cancer are diet/lifestyle related, I said must,not all
if you get a insane amount of UV form the sun and get skin cancer, thats sure lifestyle related also LOL
its called wear some uv reflective clothing
people don't ever want to take the blame for stuff they do to them selfs!
100s of years ago, people blamed witchcraft on countless stuff
, 100s of years later , people are sure being stupid,
i can point to the countless wars/govts/laws and people getting them self sick to prove it, we are living in the dark ages of human stupid
their is a great saying, that bears repeating here
You can't fix stupid
nice sentiment josh.
thew woman also forgot the 1st rule of winning lotto TELL NO-ONE
The problem with health insurance now, is it does not make a difference if you caused your own illness/injury or if it was no fault of their own.
Like I said if you want to tax people who are living a life style that is effecting their health Iwould have no problem with that. But I still think we need universal health care.
I post one comment on this story and it turns into a debate on health care. I guess I better not do any more postings.
That was a bad joke especially at a time when people are really
pressed for money. I dont blame those people, if I was near that
store, I'd have jumped at the oppotunity. Better safe than sorry.
Thanks BuyLow, but it's so typical of the response from the far left. Anytime you disagree with them, you're attacked and labeled as a racist or a redneck or any of a litany of other pejoratives. They're never wrong.
Some people just want to live in a nanny state where they feel secure feeding from the public trough under the watchful eye of Big Brother. They don't care who has to keep the trough full as long as it's not them. Just make sure the trough is full and they're happy.
They don't care how hard you worked for what's yours; they demand a piece of it and they will vote for people who vow to confiscate it from you. For some reason they feel entitled to your money if you have more than them. They call it "being fair."
They fancy that it's the "government" taking care of them and they don't care that the government doesn't have any money. They rely on the government to take money away from productive members of society and give it to them - the slackers.
It doesn't bother them a bit to see this country being destroyed as long as somebody else pays their way.
Slackers.
Well, one of the things that's wrong with some of them is that they can't undertand what they read, even when it's extremely simple. Somebody pointed out that when it was first enacted the constitution didn't treat all people as if they were equal to other people. Anyone who thinks that pointing that out is racist clearly has a serious problem in undertanding what they read.
You said the Constution should not be changed. He simply pointed out that the Constution use to say that black people were only 3/5 of a white person. The point he was trying to make is the Constution has to change to fit the time.
Memory and math, something missing on this thread. For all you race baiters groveling around, learn math and remember our president is half black and half white. So that means he was never 3/5 of anything since he was 5/5 American theoretically when he was born in Hawaii..
Or.............. he could be 5/5 Kenyan and not be a president at all.
Or if the race baiter in you, is still in you, 3/5 X 1/2 = 3/10 3/10+ 1/2 = 8/10 white or 4/5ths white according to the old 3/5ths rule of whiteness.
Do you see how race baiting math works and remembering he isn't "ALL" black?
They should have
arrested her. She's. proably broke from
the monies she spent on that limo.
I never mentioned ANYTHING about race. But that's what the topic always shifts too when you disagree with liberals these days. You can't critique the president without being called a racist.
NATURALLY slavery was wrong and calling any human being 3/5ths of a person is wrong (It was the North that wanted to count them as less than human, by the way).
It is NATURALLY and rightfully so that that inclusion necessitated changing the Constitution.
My point is that contrary to the beliefs of libs, the Constitution is NOT a living document. It was not meant to be altered at the whims and fancies of each generation. If that is to be the case, then why even have a Constitution? Just throw it out and have chaos. Let every little group of ne'erdowells, miscreants and malcontents demand that somebody else pay their bills. The problem with that concept is that eventually you run out of other people's money in numbers necessary to keep all the slackers happy.
I am sorry to inform you that there is no provision in the Constitution for other people to pay your bills. It is unconstitutional for the government to demand that we pay your bills, medical or otherwise, and it is an outrage that they intend to illegally confiscate our money to do so.
The latest poll shows that only 34% of people (the slackers) support this government takeover of healthcare; 53% oppose it and the rest don't know what day it is half the time. Regardless of the will of the people, the democrats (socialists) are determined to shove it down our throats.
Thomas Jefferson warned us about tyrants gaining control like this. He said that when it happens that the people should take up arms and throw them out. In fact, he said that it may have to be done every twenty years or so. He knew and understood the absolute corruptibility of power.
Thomas Jefferson was a wise man.
Sorry, people lose out everyday in not getting the full amount of healthcare that they may need or require because they cannot afford it.
The U.S. has better resources and 10 fold more Drs and specialist than those other countries that you mention. You're comparing apples to oranges.
I've seen people get delayed healthcare services because they carry one of the more popular HMO's...come into an emergency room in a hospital that isn't on that HMO's approval list. Have to wait for approval from that HMO to have services in that hospital or get transferred out to one of their approved facilities.
This is not something that may happen in the future or in some other country... it happens here, in the USA!!
I wish all of you who think you know all of the details about the healthcare system could actually work in the system and see all that goes on, then maybe you could make some intelligent comments about it.
If you can't pay for services in some States, you get transferred to what is called a charity hospital. Heck, I've seen patients brought in from one speciality hospital and I know that it's a dump because the patient's Medicare short-term benefits have run out. Suddenly, the facility finds all kinds of reasons not to take the person back and now that chronically ill person is sitting in an Acute care facility waiting for a less desirable nursing home bed to open up.
AND what does this have to do with the lottery???
Are you slow? He was just trying to prove his point that the Constitution had to change to fit the times. If you don't want to use race as an example how about the right to bear arms or the right to freedom of speech.
The point is the Constitiuion can and has change to give the citizens of the United States rights that they did not have before. We are trying to say that health care should be a right now.
Am I slow? Whoa.
Listen real close now junior, you just might learn something.
You have a right to free speech under the First Amendment - But I don't have to buy your soapbox!
You have a right to bear arms under the Second Amendment - But I don't have to buy your guns!
You already have a right to get any kind of medical care you want - But I don't have to pay for it!
Show me where in the Constitution it says that I have to pay for anything that you have rights to!
You want to amend the Constitution because you want a handout? Get a job and support yourself!
We don't need to amend the Constitution to give you a "right" to healthcare. You already have that right.
You just want somebody else to pay your way. Well, the American people don't want to pay your way.
If you want somebody else to pay for everything for you I suggest you find a country that does that.
The majority of the American people like the healthcare system we have and we don't want to cater to
every slacker that comes along thinking he's entitled to everybody else's money for some insane reason.
Nobody owes you anything. You don't have a "right" to other people's money. Get over it.
And get used to the fact that your hero will be a one-termer. People are waking up to the horrendous mistake they made.
I am done arguing with idiots.
"I am sorry to inform you that there is no provision in the Constitutionfor other people to pay your bills. It is unconstitutional for thegovernment to demand that we pay your bills, medical or otherwise, andit is an outrage that they intend to illegally confiscate our money todo so."
You're confused. For the most part, people aren't asking the government to make anyone else pay their bills. They're asking the government to provide a(nother) service. Not only is there absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that, providing services to the people is pretty much the only reason to have a government.
I seen that story, I know it was a Hoax, and I knew something was wrong with that lady. I don't blame any one of those people for getting mad about it, but they didn't have to loot the Store. It wasn't the Stores fault. People do some crazy things.
This really doesn't have anything to do with the lottery other than her statement that is where she supposedly got the money from.
what was that about?????
THE president is being accused of everything -even some statements made by a women walking into a store for low income consumers
gee wizz .......Republicans need a life ....
I love this President , he is doing his best ....lets face it , no one elese could do anybetter ; 
Floyd,
You said that people aren't asking the government to make anyone else pay their bills; that they just want them to provide another service. OK, given the fact that the government doesn't have any money other than that they confiscate from other people; who then is going to pay for this "service?"
The Constitution was written in a way to be a constraint on federal power. The founders knew the wiles of despotism and tyranny. They wanted to ensure that future generations weren't subjected to it. They respected state's rights over federal dominance and included language in the Constitution ensuring it (see the 10th Amendment).
To trash the Constitution because a small segment of society wants a handout is an outrage.
You also said that providing services to the people is pretty much the only reason to have a government. That flies in the face of the rugged individualism that made this country great. The pioneers weren't looking for a nanny, they were proud people. They considered it shameful to take charity or get a handout. Those were the people that wrote our Constitution and formed our government in those days. To change the intent of the foundational document these people wrote for the transient whims of some MTV generation slackers is not something most Americans would take lightly or accept.
The federal government is there primarily to guarantee our sovereignty, protect our borders, regulate trade, provide for our national defense and such. They are not there to confiscate and redistribute wealth. They are not there to make sure everybody is happy and nobody gets more than anybody else. It's not their job and the Constitution forbids it.
We are a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic is not a social agency.
The day may come when the slackers are in the majority and they will be able to burn the Constitution and put everybody on welfare. But they're not there yet and it's not looking too good for them in the next elections. Patriotic Americans are waking up to the tyranny of this administration. They see that it's socialism in it's infancy and they don't want any part of it. Thank God.
A majority of states have recently filed assertions of their sovereignty and if worse comes to worst things could get real interesting in the near future. And what that portends may be exactly what we need if worse does come to worst. Personally though, I think the next elections (2010 and 2012) will correct this insane course we've been on for the past 9 months. Then the current president can replace Jimmy Carter as the worst president in our history.
your wrong ........the government has given Trillions to almost every nation on earth .....the federal contracts for the new jet fighter proves it and what about the contract to build the new missele defence system in Poland ?? there were only a few American Business involved and then there is the current new cargo and refuling air ships those are not to be built here either :
So what is American you should be asking its not the majoity of the Media -radio-tv-newspappers their owned by rupert Murdoch he is not an American and neither is the majiority of the largest Drug Co. ......so whats this statement by you saying???
(The Constitution was written in a way to be a constraint on federal power..)..........
.And the Republicans have had this whitehouse for over 20 years , and the congress ( reagan- Ford-Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr. all had their time and lets include Nixion in there ........all but Ford had 8 years apeice :
YOU and others need to explain where and why you spent the NATIONS WEALTH................WHY NOT AMERICANS THIS TIME ???!!!!
The Constitution mandates providing for a common defense.
It does not mandate nor allow taking money from me and giving it to you (sorry about that).
As I said previously, there are countries that operate in that fashion and if that is what you prefer you are free to go live under that kind of system.
The vast majority of Americans are not slackers and aren't looking for a handout. We will not change the Constitution for a small minority of whiners.
And complaining about the Republicans' national debt after the Democrats just quadrupled it is a little anticlimactic, isn't it?
If there was a point in your reference to Rupert Murdoch and the Drug Companies I'm sorry, I missed it.
"They respected state's rights over federal dominance"
That's true as written, but I'm not sure if what you wrote reflects your intended meaning. The Constitution was intended to limit the power of the federal government and make sure it couldn't trample state rights, but it was also intended to restrict state's rights. The result is a document that over time has done a fairly good job of balancing power between the states and the federal government.
"To trash the Constitution because a small segment of society wants a handout is an outrage."
I'd have to agree with that general concept, but since it's not happening, why point it out? You may not like it, but what's being done in regards to health care is entirely permissible under the constitution. You may not like how the constitution is interpreted, but the current interpretation goes back to before TV existed, nevermind MTV and the MTV generation.
"The federal government is there primarily ..."
Those are services. The government does for the people what the people can't (conveniently) do for themselves.
"They are not there to confiscate and redistribute wealth. <snip> It's not their job and the Constitution forbids it."
That's not the intent, but any time the government collects taxes and uses them for anything that wealth is "redistributed". Not only is it not forbidden by the constitution, it's a power that's specifically granted to the federal government. That "redistribution" works both ways. Some people who start with little get a bit more. Some people who already have a lot get a lot more. Maybe you recognize names like Cheney and Haliburton? For the most part, the middle class is always on the losing end. I'd say that health care is one issue where they have a pretty good shot of coming out even.
"but it (the Constitution) was also intended to restrict state's rights."
Absolutely not. The feds were given very specific powers. Those not delegated specifically to the federal government were reserved for the states. The Tenth Amendment makes that very clear. The states are supreme in most any given circumstance. The fact that the feds have been running roughshod over states' rights for years does not negate that fact. Case in point, the convolution and criminal misuse of the Commerce Clause.
Some people have the backbone to stand up to the criminal intervention by the feds in state matters though. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona ia one of them. They told him to stop arresting illegal aliens. He told them to pound sand. No federal authority can tell a Sheriff what to do in his own county and own state. A lot of people just don't know the limitations of federal law and accept federal bullying. A lot of people are waking up and getting informed though. I met a lot of them in the 9/12 march on DC.
"balancing power between the states and the federal government"
There was never an intention or even reference to balancing power. Again, check out the Tenth Amendment. The feds have a specific job assignment given to them by the states. And they haven't been doing that job very well unless you consider boondoggle after fiasco some measure of success.
"since it's not happening (trashing the Constitution), why point it out?"
That was in response to one person saying that the Constitution needs to be changed to fit the mood of the times. No, the Constitution is not being changed to please the slackers who feel entitled to other people's money but the fact they want it to is an outrage.
"what's being done in regards to health care is entirely permissible under the constitution."
No it's not. Period. Show me where it says they can force me to buy anything I don't want and then fine and imprison me if I don't do it. That's sheer nonsense.
"The government does for the people what the people can't (conveniently) do for themselves."
That is not their job and they cannot legally do it under the Constitution.
"any time the government collects taxes and uses them for anything that wealth is "redistributed"."
Yes it is, illegally. That crime is brought to you by the Sixteenth Amendment, brought to you by a corrupt government in 1913 and it should be repealed. The fact remains however that even given the 16th Amendment, the money should be used within the parameters of power allocated to the federal government. It's not.
"Maybe you recognize names like Cheney and Haliburton?"
OK, now I know where you're coming from. You left out "Bush lied, people died" though. Floyd, LOL, there's no hope for ya!
Let's just agree to disagree.
Our government should protect its people. I am in favor of cutting government workers wages and salaries. And very much in favor of not allowing any pensions, especially for Congress. I am in favor of getting rid of all that junk they do and put that money towards health care.
SINCE YOU MISSED MY POINT ALL THE WAY LET ME CLAIRIFY IT BETTER :
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE GIVEN AWAY TRILLIONS OF US DOLLARS OVERSEAS , :
US CONTRACTS FUND ALMOST EVERYNATION ON EARTH :
US BUSINESS DIDN'T GET THE FEDERAL DOLLARS THANKS TO THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE DOMINATED THE GOVERNMENT FOR OVER 20 YEARS ; Rupert murdoch owns most of the media in this nation Fox is just one :
now what does Fox news and republicans have in common ????? a professional group of liars and businessmen who have robbed this nation of its entire wealth ..your worried about the crumbs from the masters table: do you know what a trilllion dollars
is and what nations your party has sent our money too ???/
s ???
common defence this :
Fox Television Stations
Fox Television Stations is owned by News Corporation.
Jack Abernethy is the CEO of Fox Television Stations.
Fox Television is a group of 35 television stations in 26 markets throughout the United States owned and operated by the Fox Broadcasting Company, which is owned by News Corporation, the company built by Rupert Murdoch.
Together, the Fox television stations reach about 45% of the population of the USA.
Fox Television Stations Group, or FTSG, is one of the largest owned-and-operated network groups in the United States. It was formed in April 1986 from a collection of former Metromedia-owned TV stations.
Contact Information
Web Site: www.newscorp.com/management/foxtvstations.html Telephone: 212.301.5400 Address: 1211 Avenue of the Americas
21st Floor
New York NY 10036
USA
Local Media Properties
Select a media outlet to find a detailed profile at Mondo Times, the worldwide media guide.
In Arizona:
KSAZ TV 10 (Fox affiliate) KUTP TV 45 (MyTV affiliate)
In California:
KCOP TV 13 (MyTV affiliate) KTTV TV 11 (Fox affiliate)
In Florida:
WOFL TV 35 (Fox affiliate) WOGX TV 51 (Fox affiliate) WRBW TV 65 (MyTV affiliate) WTVT TV 13 (Fox affiliate)
In Georgia:
WAGA TV 5 (Fox affiliate)
In Illinois:
WFLD TV 32 (Fox affiliate) WPWR TV 50 (MyTV affiliate)
In Maryland:
WUTB TV 24 (MyTV affiliate)
In Massachusetts:
WFXT TV 25 (Fox affiliate)
In Michigan:
WJBK TV 2 (Fox affiliate)
In Minnesota:
KMSP TV 9 (Fox affiliate) WFTC TV 29 (MyTV affiliate)
In Mississippi:
WNTZ TV 48 (Fox affiliate)
In New York:
WNYW TV 5 (Fox affiliate) WWOR TV 9 (MyTV affiliate)
In Pennsylvania:
WTXF TV 29 (Fox affiliate)
In Tennessee:
WHBQ TV 13 (Fox affiliate)
In Texas:
KDFI TV 27 (MyTV affiliate) KDFW TV 4 (Fox affiliate) KRIV TV 26 (Fox affiliate) KTBC TV 7 (Fox affiliate) KTXH TV 20 (MyTV affiliate)
In Washington DC:
WDCA TV 20 (MyTV affiliate) WTTG TV 5 (Fox affiliate)
"I met a lot of them in the 9/12 march on DC."
"there's no hope for ya!"
Back at ya, I guess.
By virtue of granting certain powers to the federal government, some states' rights are restricted or prohibited axiomatically. States' rights are also restricted by most of the Bill of Rights. You can also look at the history behind the constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation, and the adoption of the Virginia plan over the New Jersey Plan.
Tell me, though, if the state's rights aren't restricted, do you think the states can force you to buy something you don't want and then fine you? Does it really matter whether it's done at the state or federal level?
In most states, if you own a car you're required to have auto insurance. Some municipalities have passed laws that require gun ownership. Closer to our debate, Massachusetts has a law that requires residents to carry health insurance that meets minimum state requirements. I don't think any of those laws specifically require that you "buy" those things, but how else do most people get them? It's not that the constitution allows those things, it's that it doesn't prohibit them. If an act isn't prohibited it is allowed, and the only question is whether something can be done by the states, the federal government, or both.
The real issue, and the one where you seem to have your head in the sand, is that the federal government isn't requiring you to buy anything. They collect taxes and spend the money as they see fit. It's well established law that individuals don't get to pick and choose which government programs they pay for; you get to pay for them all. As for the 16th amendment, we can worry about that after you and yourfriends decide whether or not we actually landed on the moon.
I agree that the commerce clause (don't forget the general welfare and necessary and reasonable clauses) has been used for things it shouldn't, but the powers of the constitution are what SCOTUS says they are. Bummer that those founding fathers limited the powers of the federal government and then put them in charge of deciding how to interpret those powers, huh? If only the laws they interpret were enacted by people whose job is to represent the states. Oh. Never mind.
As for Cheney and Haliburton, do you disagree that they've both pocketed money from each of us? I just picked them because they're well known and have both made a lot of money from government contracts recently. If it makes you any happier, I'm pretty sure we've both put money in ACORN's pockets, too, though I don't think they've gotten rich. I'm not sure how, but I'll bet there's some federal program that helped put that $500 million in Teresa Heinz Kerry's pockets, too.
BTW, a gay poet?
I read your clarification:
"SINCE YOU MISSED MY POINT ALL THE WAY LET ME CLAIRIFY IT BETTER :
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE GIVEN AWAY TRILLIONS OF US DOLLARS OVERSEAS , :
US CONTRACTS FUND ALMOST EVERYNATION ON EARTH :
US BUSINESS DIDN'T GET THE FEDERAL DOLLARS THANKS TO THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE DOMINATED THE GOVERNMENT FOR OVER 20 YEARS ; Rupert murdoch owns most of the media in this nation Fox is just one :"
You may need to further clarify because I still don't get your point.
1) I am not a Republican. I don't defend their actions. I consider them the lesser of two evils and have felt forced to vote for them in the past only in an effort to keep the
the nutjob Dems out. Repubs talk a good game at times but they don't keep their word once they're in office.
2) You stated in a previous post that we have given trillions to nearly every nation on earth. That's simply not true.
3) You stated that US contracts fund almost every nation on earth. That's simply not true.
4) You said US businesses didn't get the federal dollars thanks to Republicans. What federal dollars were they supposed to get and for what purpose?
5) What in the world does Rupert Murdoch have to do with anything we're talking about?
6) What in the world is your list of drug companies and news media companies all about? Is there a point there somewhere?
Thanks for the list of Fox News affiliates but once again; what's the point?
Floyd,
With all due respect, after reading your post all I can say is that you're off the reservation, all over the map and quite possibly in a parallel universe. Check your coordinates.
1) There is nothing axiomatic about restriction or prohibition of states rights. The restrictions and prohibitions are all on the federal government and stated very clearly.
2) For you to say that the Bill of Rights restricts or even mentions restricting states rights is ludicrous. It's all about the individual rights of the people.
3) Yes, the states can require you to have insurance if that is what their constituency wants but the federal government cannot.
4) Tennessee experimented with socialized healthcare and it was a colossal failure and is being discontinued.
5) Because something isn't prohibited to the federal government does not mean that it is allowed (Tenth Amendment).
6) You're wrong about the federal government not requiring us to buy anything. Everyone will be required to buy insurance or face stiff fines and/or imprisonment. It will not be taken out of your taxes. You will be forced to buy it. But yes, you will also be taxed to pay for those on the public option (the slackers).
7) That's your crowd that thinks the moon landing was a hoax. They also think that Bush and Cheney blew up the towers and that there are Martians in Area 51.
8) I agree with you on ACORN; don't know about Teresa Heinz for sure.
9) As for Haliburton, there was simply no one conglomerate in the world that could handle the logistics of the tasks they've been given, especially Iraq. If you know of one you should let the government know because nobody else does.
10) To put this whole debate to rest I would advise you to read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. It explicitly details the powers given to the federal government. Then read the Tenth Amendment which explicitly details the scope and limits of those powers. It's very clear and precise.
Gay poet? I don't get it.
well if ownning the top ten drug companies to the media is not clear as to the abuses that have drained our ecomony is not clear to a blind man then your lost in the hype :
sad but true...... the USA government and the majior us busn. have given trillions overseas corporations . the new fighter jets and the recent Poland- AIR DEFENCE SYSTEMS are just one example ....you need to look into the matter of who built what in re. military contracts ;
computerhead,
How about we just agree to disagree on that topic and go back to discussing the lottery and be friends?
rdgrnr
1
STATEMENT
OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS,
DISSENTING
Re: General Motors Corporation and Hughes Electronics, Corporation, Transferors
and The News Corporation Limited, Transferee, For Authority to Transfer
Control
Here we go again. Today the Commission demonstrates how serious -- and
seriously misguided -- it was when it voted on June 2 to eviscerate media concentration
protections. Presented with the opportunity to signal whether it intends to protect the
important goals of diversity, competition, and localism, or to allow instead ever greater
and more threatening levels of media consolidation, the majority flashes the green light
for the next great wave of media consolidation.
News Corp was already a media giant:
• In the U.S., News Corp. owns television stations reaching over 44 percent of
the country. (WNYW-5, New York; WWOR-TV-9, New York; KTTV-11,
Los Angeles; KCOP-13, Los Angeles; WFLD-32, Chicago; WPWR-TV-50,
Chicago; WTXF-TV-29, Philadelphia; WFXT-25, Boston; KDFW-4, Dallas;
KDFI-27, Dallas; WTTG-5, Washington, DC; WDCA-20, Washington, DC;
KMSP-TV-9, Minneapolis; WFTC-29, Minneapolis; WJBK-2, Detroit;
WAGA-5, Atlanta; WUTB-24, Baltimore; KRIV-26, Houston; KTXH-20,
Houston; WTVT-13, Tampa Bay; WRBW-65, Orlando; WOFL-35, Orlando;
WJW-8, Cleveland; KSAZ-TV-10, Phoenix; KUTP-45, Phoenix; KDVR-31,
Denver; KTVI-2, St. Louis; WITI-6, Milwaukee; WDAF-TV-4, Kansas City;
KSTU-13, Salt Lake City; WBRC-6, Birmingham; WHBQ-TV-13, Memphis;
WGHP-8, Greensboro; KTBC-7, Austin; WOGX-51, Ocala).
• In nine markets, it owns more than one television station (New York, Los
Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Washington, DC, Minneapolis, Houston, Orlando
and Phoenix).
• It owns a major national broadcast network (Fox).
• It owns numerous cable and DBS channels, including regional sports
networks across the country (among them FX, Fox News Channel, Fox Movie
Channel, Fox Sports, Fox Sports en Espagnol, National Geographic Channel,
Speed Channel).
• It owns the most widely used electronic program guide for navigating
television content (Gemstar-TV Guide).
• It owns newspapers, magazines, and publishing (including New York Post,
The Weekly Standard and HarperCollins Publishers).
2
• It owns studios (including Twentieth Century Fox, Searchlight, Fox
Television Studios, Twentieth Century Fox Television).
• It will now own a nationwide multi-channel direct broadcast satellite system
(DirecTV).
• And it will now also own a major fixed satellite service provider that carries
video broadcast and cable programming for delivery to distribution systems
(PanAmSat).
• This list constitutes News Corp’s major holdings in the United States. This
conglomerate also has massive media holdings in other nations spanning the
globe.
When is “Big Media” big enough? With spectrum always scarce and diversity
hanging by a thread, where is the logic -- where is the public interest benefit -- of giving
more and more media power to fewer and fewer players? In the end, it all comes back to
this: to putting too much power in one conglomerate’s hands and creating opportunities
for abuse that accompany such concentrated power. Any public interest benefits that may
potentially come about from this huge consolidation of commercial power are vastly
outweighed by the potential for significant harm to consumers, the industry and the
country. I therefore dissent from allowing this merger to go forward.
The majority seems to recognize that the agreement that the parties presented to
the Commission for approval was seriously flawed. But the majority’s strategy to apply
band-aids in several places to stem what is in fact a public interest hemorrhage did not –
because they could not -- work. This agreement was probably beyond repair. Certainly
the band-aids applied by the majority don’t fix it.
The Applicants point to several claimed public interest benefits of the proposed
merger. Yet, even the majority discounts all but two of these benefits as not supported by
the record. The majority relies on the potential public interest benefits of innovative
services that will be offered under News Corp.’s management and on additional markets
in which DirecTV will provide carriage for local television stations. As to the former, the
majority admits it is difficult to quantify, but points to the innovative service offerings
available on News Corp.’s satellite systems in other parts of the world which include
interactive sports betting and casinos. As to the claimed second benefit, the major DBS
providers have already been increasing their local station carriage for competitive reasons
and, as several commenters point out, DirecTV is altogether able to expand those
offerings without this merger.
The Order is even more telling in its handling of potential harms emanating from
this transaction. The majority finds that News Corp. has market power in its
programming services, that this transaction increases its ability and incentive to use its
market power to raise programming costs, and that these increases would ultimately be
3
passed on to consumers. All of the Commissioners appear to agree that, as proposed by
the Applicants, the harms of this transaction outweigh the benefits. In addition to my
belief that the conditions imposed in this Order are not adequate to address the harms
acknowledged by the majority, I am further concerned that the majority fails to
acknowledge other real and potential harms associated with the merger. These include:
• Media Concentration: Although the majority at least attempts to address the
harms of vertical integration, it dismisses outright horizontal integration harms
that can arise from allowing one company to own broadcast outlets across the
country and a nationwide multi-channel distribution system – an
unprecedented level of consolidation. Instead, the majority concludes that
broadcast outlets do not serve the same market as cable and DBS. The
majority further discounts any harms to localism or diversity, finding instead
that market forces will ensure adequate sources of information. To trust that
in the unforgiving environment of the market, the public interest will
somehow magically trump the urge to build power and profit is a leap of faith
that this Commissioner, for one, is unprepared to take. The majority ought to
know better. This is the same flawed logic we saw in the Commission’s June
2 decision. In addition, the majority fails to analyze the impact of this merger
on ensuring independent and diverse programming. Alleged economies of
scale do precious little to nurture program or viewpoint diversity.
Given the majority’s analysis, I am concerned that this merger is merely the
beginning of another wave of consolidation. News Corp. has indicated it may
continue growing by acquiring additional television duopolies and other
properties. Indeed, the majority apparently presumes that additional News
Corp. acquisitions of television stations, radio stations, and newspapers is in
the public interest under the Commission’s new bright-line media ownership
rules. And other Big Media conglomerates, encouraged by today’s decision,
will now feel emboldened or compelled to consolidate further. My service as
a Commissioner has taught me that the response to one company’s acquisition
is almost invariably another company’s request to grow bigger so that it can
“compete” and “survive.”
The majority’s conclusion that broadcast stations do not compete in the same
market as cable and DBS, along with its unwillingness closely to examine
harms to diversity and localism, make clear that this Commission has no
intention to slow, or even critically to examine, cross-platform mergers
between broadcast stations and cable or DBS systems.
• Community Standards and Indecency: Some have suggested that there may
be a link between increasing consolidation and increasing indecency on our
airwaves. As I traveled across this country holding hearings and attending
forums earlier this year, I heard time and again that ownership matters when it
comes to what is offered up to viewers and listeners, particularly to our
children. I am troubled that today’s decision comes on the heels of complaints
4
that News Corp. aired indecent material on the 2003 Billboard Music Awards
just last week. This is not the first instance of such viewer complaints against
News Corp. Many of the indecency complaints I have seen come into the
Commission involve stations owned by large media companies. I raise the
issue here not because of any specific broadcast program, but because the
Commission has refused to study the possible relationship between indecency
and media concentration. I believe such a study is relevant to decisions such
as the one we make today and that, indeed, we should not be making these
decisions until we have credibly considered the matter. As we allow media
conglomerates to grow ever larger, many Americans are concerned that the
race to the bottom will accelerate and that broadcaster consideration for local
community standards will continue to erode.
Yet, today, before we even consider these complaints or address the impact of
increasing consolidation on increasing indecency, we reward News Corp. with
a nationwide programming distribution system. And what will be the effect?
Will we see even more attempts to air progressively coarser content? As we
move towards more interactive programming, will we see gambling intrude
itself into our homes on DirecTV as News Corp. provides on its overseas
satellite system? Will we see wider distribution of shows that continue to
push the envelope of outrageousness even further?
• Increasing Consumer Rates: Applicants cite economic efficiencies that will
result from their agreement and claim that the merger will give them the scale
and scope to compete more effectively. There may well be some such
efficiencies, although the baleful tale of many recent high visibility corporate
mega-mergers does not provide much proof of commercial success. Be that
as it may, Applicants did not demonstrate that any of these alleged savings
would be passed on to consumers nor did they evince great enthusiasm for so
doing. It is telling that Applicants produced so little data as to how this
transaction could possibly discipline rising cable rates. The likelihood of its
doing so is so remote as to be invisible. Interestingly, just today news reports
tell us that our cable bills will be going up again on January 1, rising on
average 6.5 percent – this when the nation’s inflation rate is 1.8 percent!
Lower prices seldom ensue from industry combinations. When we approve a
transaction that further increases concentration in programming production
and distribution, it is reasonable to assume that we are setting the stage for
upward pressure on cable rates. An entirely plausible outcome of this
decision is escalating consumer rates for multi-channel services from both
cable systems and DirecTV. When faced with a similar scenario, the Federal
Trade Commission in the Time Warner/Turner merger adopted a benchmark
price index mechanism. Here, the majority dismisses such an approach,
adopting instead so-called baseball arbitration. I am not convinced that
arbitration has succeeded in bringing down costs in baseball. More to the
point, this is not baseball and it is surely not a game. Although the majority
allows the Commission to review the arbitration decisions, it then ties the
5
Commission’s hands by requiring us to choose between each party’s final
offer. This reduces the Commission’s obligation to protect the public interest
to a multiple choice test. Let’s be clear here: what the arbitrators will most
often be arbitrating are two companies’ proposals to raise rates. The only
question to be decided is how much rates will increase. Payment for higher
programming license fees will be borne, of course, by consumers.
Moreover, although the majority seems to recognize the possibility of
increased consumer rates from this level of consolidation, it inexplicably
provides a sunset for these conditions of six years. This sunset is adopted
without any explanation of why the majority expects these harms to be
resolved within that timeframe.
I am troubled by other aspects of this decision.
I am troubled by the lack of analysis on the foreign ownership implications of the
transaction. In section 310(b) of the Act, Congress adopted a broad provision that limits
the ability of foreign entities to own or operate parts of our communications system. This
foreign ownership restriction applies across a broad range of communications services.
For decades, the Commission applied these restrictions to DBS. Last year, with
inadequate justification, the Commission determined that the foreign ownership
restrictions in 310(b) should not apply to DBS. As a result, the majority, in approving
this deal under which News Corp., an Australian company, purchases control of a U.S.
DBS licensee, concludes that it need not consider the foreign ownership implications.
I am troubled by the majority’s failure to consider the impact of this merger on
minority communities. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus in a recent letter raised
numerous serious issues related to the negative impact of this merger on the Latino
community, on minority-owned independent programmers and on local and Latinofocused
programming. The majority fails to do justice to these concerns.
I am troubled that the Commission is approving this merger without resolving
issues specific to the Applicants that have been raised regarding service in Alaska and
Hawaii. Parties have filed complaints that DirecTV fails to provide reasonably
comparable packages of services to Alaska and Hawaii, as required by our rules. If these
companies are violating Commission rules, we should address these issues as part of our
public interest analysis.
Finally, I am troubled by the failure to clarify that DirecTV, or any other DBS
provider, may not discriminate against some local broadcasters by requiring consumers to
obtain a second dish to receive those broadcasters. In 1999, Congress passed the Satellite
Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA). That Act required that, if a provider carries
any local broadcast signals, it must carry all local broadcast signals, and must do so at a
nondiscriminatory price and in a nondiscriminatory manner. In 2002, Commissioner
Martin and I issued a joint statement making clear our view that a plan to require
6
consumers to obtain a second dish to receive only some of the local broadcast stations in
a market did not comply with the statute or Commission rules.
In sum, I simply cannot support the level of concentration by a single owner that
will result from this merger absent compelling public interest circumstances.
Unfortunately, I do not find that the potential public interest benefits of this transaction
outweigh the real and potential harms. This decision is the wrong decision – wrong for
the media industry, wrong for consumers, wrong for democracy in America.
I am just merely AMAZED how the original topic got so far off topic!
Forget about trying to get a free coat, I need Hip waiters for this stuff!
dude ...someone was blaming president Obama for her problems in that store and this administration for her telling people she hit the lottery:
I just responded :
The topic has gone so far off-base it's ridiculous, and this started when some moron somehow decided President Obama was partially to blame for what happened at the Burlington Coat Factory. How stupid are you anyway?