Republicans demand airtime after Obama health address

jamesrage said:

If Obama is paying for airtime out his own pocket or some private group is paying for that airtime then no the networks shouldn't have to air the opposition speech. If the networks are getting some sort of tax break or the tax payers are footing the bill then yes the networks should have to air the opposition side.

You seem to be purposely mixing this up with the fairness doctrine with how the government spends tax payer's money. Liberal fairness doctrine is requiring radio stations to air both sides of any issue they choose to air or talk about. Actual fairness doctrine would require that both sides of an issue be aired and it would apply to tv, newspapers, radio and bloggers, not just only radio.

Click to expand...

The government doesn't pay for networks to air political speeches. The networks pay for their own expenses of covering the speech, if they choose to do so.

I think the Republicans should be able to voice their opinion since that has always been the custom for joint congressional addresses like the State of the Union. But the Fairness Doctrine is ridiculous, and I fail to see how any self-respecting conservative could support it.

Kandahar said:

The government doesn't pay for networks to air political speeches. The networks pay for their own expenses of covering the speech, if they choose to do so.

I think the Republicans should be able to voice their opinion since that has always been the custom for joint congressional addresses like the State of the Union. But the Fairness Doctrine is ridiculous, and I fail to see how any self-respecting conservative could support it.

Click to expand...

I don't think there are any Connies supporting the Fairness Doctrine.

Kandahar said:

The government doesn't pay for networks to air political speeches. The networks pay for their own expenses of covering the speech, if they choose to do so.

Click to expand...

IF thats the case then no the networks shouldn't be under an obligation to air opposition speeches. What are your views regarding PBS since PBS is not a private entity and is paid for by tax payers?

I think the Republicans should be able to voice their opinion since that has always been the custom for joint congressional addresses like the State of the Union

Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

. But the Fairness Doctrine is ridiculous, and I fail to see how any self-respecting conservative could support it.

Click to expand...

I do not support the fairness doctrine nor have I ever claimed to support it.

jamesrage said:

IF thats the case then no the networks shouldn't be under an obligation to air opposition speeches. What are your views regarding PBS since PBS is not a private entity and is paid for by tax payers?

Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure how PBS works, but I think it's mainly funded through state and local governments, as well as individual donations. I guess it should be up to each individual state/community to determine that.

I would be against imposing any kind of Fairness Doctrine on PBS or anyone else though. PBS is often considered the most trusted news source in America; it would be a shame to ruin that.

disneydude said:

Republicans demand airtime after Obama health address - Yahoo! News

Battle-ready Republicans are lobbying US television networks for airtime after President Barack Obama's crucial health care address to Congress next Wednesday.

In a letter to television network bosses, top Republican lawmaker Senator John Boehner asked for time "immediately following the president?s address to a joint session of Congress" on September 9.


Question is, how are they going to fill up 15 minutes or so with their party mantra: "No".

Seriously,
I think its always good though to give both sides time, that way Americans get to see both sides of the issue. I think this can only be helpful to educating people about the facts because whatever is said is going to be scrutinized and it is unlikely either side won't be called out on distorting facts.

I've got an idea though....the GOP should let that Louisiana guy do it again...you know.... that guy who is supposed to be their strong candidate for President...the guy to take on Obama....who gave such an incredible and stunning response for the GOP once before.

Click to expand...

I love how the Libruls continue to spin the GOP as the party of "NO." But alas, if NO means stop spending money that you don't have; then I and a majority of Americans are all for no. If NO means stop piling on the National debt; then I and a majority of Americans are all for no. If NO means no more new taxes that will only harm the possibility of quick recovery; then I and a majority of Americans are all for no.

Sometimes just saying NO is a GOOD thing regardless of how the Libruls desperately spin their program.

The most dishonest part of this debate, however, comes from the Librul Democrats and this President who willfully spin the potential costs of this program as merely being another trillion dollars and who refuse an honest dialogue about how they plan on paying for it. And please, spare me the idiotic nonsense that there will be all these SAVINGS that will pay for it; that is BS.

Like I stated many times before in this debate; there are several questions that Librul Democrats must answer before Americans swallow the swill they are dishing out; (1) Will all members of Government partake in the exact same program as YOU, the Democrats want to foist on us? and; (2) How are you going to pay for the trillions of additional spending this will entail?

If the answer to (1) is NO; and they continue to refuse to honestly answer (2);then the answer from the American people should be NO thank you.

Once again Disneydude represents the mentality of a political ideology that can never stand on its own without demagoging their political opponents and fabricating absurd little titles like "the party of no."

But alas, when you represent a philosophy that has spent over $40 trillion to fight poverty, spent us into an obscene $1.6 trillion deficit and nearly double the national debt from the previous 8 years, with no discernable results, and represent a party that never seems to get enough tax payer money and who's only solution to every societal ill is if they just confiscated MORE of our hard earned wealth they could make things better, spinning the truth, lying and denigrating their political opponents with lies and distortions is about all you have left.

By all means, carry on.

PS: Bobby Jindhal has more intelligence in his little finger than Joe “stickyerfootinyermouth” Biden and Barrack “post turtle” Obama have in their entire beings.

But hey, go ahead and make fun of people who have more intelligence than you; it’s the only game you’ve all got.

:2wave:

Objective Voice said:

That's because no plan they've presented outside of committee is any better than what's already presented by the Dems.

• S. 1099 calls for establishing a state-based Health Insurance Exchange, retaining Medicaid for low-income individuals w/disabilities, but converting all others under Medicaid onto private insurance.
  
• S. 703 also calls for establishing a state-based public option, but would eliminate Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP.
  
• S. 391 would create a new "private-sector" insurance program (currently titled Healthy Americans Private Insurance) using federal subsidies.

It goes without saying, the Republicans are being very underhanded - hypercritical, in fact - in causing all this decention among Americans, yet knowing full well that the health care bills they do have out there are ALL no different than what the Dems are proposing.

To be fair, other Dems bills:

• H.R. 676 would follow suit w/S. 703.
  
• H.R. 15 would effectily rename Medicaid and follow suit w/s. 1099 only it would phase out Medicare over time and place all future Medicare eligible individuals under this new state-based program. As such, all federal funds that normally would have gone under Medicare/Medicaid would go to this program instead.
  
• H.R. 193 would establish "AmeriCare" which would mimic Medicare where all U.S. citizens would be covered only under this plan insurance premiums would still be partically paid for by the private sector (employers) same as most Americans currently pay for their insurance cost w/government subsidies helping to defray the cost, as needed.

The only bill that combines all of these ideas is H.R. 3200. Even the three non-official bills currently receiving limited attention (2 by the Senate [Finance and HELP committees], 1 by a non-government affiliate led by former Sens. Howard Baker, Tom Dashle & Bob Dole) all have elements of a government/state-based public option and call for eliminated or expanding Medicaid/Medicare. Go to this thread and read each bill for yourself, or you can review the side-by-side comparison of each proposal/bill.

Bottom line: The Republicans aren't being honest when it comes to health care reform....PERIOD! And they know it! They've more than happy to let the current front-running Democratic bill (H.R. 3200) be "their bill" and stand back and watch it fall apart so that they can come in and "save the day". Only thing is, what they're proposing isn't much different. Of course, most Americans won't stop to look and learn for themselves what other reform bills are out there and learn the truth.

Click to expand...

:rofl Yes, the Republicans are sooooo dishonest while them Libruls are trying so hard to be honest.

I have to hand it to you Objective, you think by naming proposals it makes your argument credible, but rather it is just INcredible.

Let's talk about REAL reforms like tort reform, REAL competition in the States between insurance providers.

The notion that the Democrats are being honest here while lying about their desire to have a PUBLIC option and how it WILL add more competition, the LIE about how much it will cost to add millions to the Government teat suggests that you OBVIOUSLY think that the $1.6 trillion deficit and no end in sight to job losses must be a sign of intelligence.

Here's the HONEST part of this debate: it is NOT about a Republican plan or Bi-Partisanship. The Democrats don't need ONE single Republican vote to bury this country even deeper in deficits and debt. The ugly TRUTH is that their own members are scared to death of this idea and are not on board to vote for it. The notion that this is a Republican effort to prevent nationalized healthcare is as big a lie as this Administrations agenda.

I have to constantly laugh at the notion that you are a moderate and not a Librul.

:rofl

Clue fer the Libruls:

Republicans cannot stop this bill. :rofl

I am always fascinated when Libruls spin and lie about their agenda and pretend that somehow them big bad Conservatives have this sinister plot to stop what the good intentioned Libruls want to do for the Amurican people.

Libruls; write yer congressmorons and tell them that you WANT them all to support this Government attempt to insure millions of brain dead Americans and you demand that they make all them EVIL profitable BIG corporations and EVIL rich Executives to pay for it all.

:rofl

jamesrage said:

Then they should be allowed that, just like how some Nancy Pelosi or some other democrat got to speak when Bush was done with his speech..

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. I have no problem in the world with them getting airtime after the speech.

Health care in America, sometime in the not too distant future:

From the article:
"Battle-ready Republicans are lobbying US television networks for airtime after President Barack Obama's crucial health care address to Congress next Wednesday."

"In a letter to television network bosses, top Republican lawmaker Senator John Boehner asked for time 'immediately following the president's address to a joint session of Congress' on September 9."

Republicans demand airtime after Obama health address - Yahoo! News

That does not seem like "demand[ing]" airtime. They are simply asking for the alternate view to be presented. That is the beauty of our country, all sides get to present their opinions and people become more informed decision-makers.

The networks are free to give airtime or not, but I see no one demanding anything here. The fact that someone is asking for time to express their view on the other side of an important issue is a responsible way of informing people.

disneydude said:

Republicans demand airtime after Obama health address - Yahoo! News

Battle-ready Republicans are lobbying US television networks for airtime after President Barack Obama's crucial health care address to Congress next Wednesday.

In a letter to television network bosses, top Republican lawmaker Senator John Boehner asked for time "immediately following the president?s address to a joint session of Congress" on September 9.


Question is, how are they going to fill up 15 minutes or so with their party mantra: "No".

Seriously,
I think its always good though to give both sides time, that way Americans get to see both sides of the issue. I think this can only be helpful to educating people about the facts because whatever is said is going to be scrutinized and it is unlikely either side won't be called out on distorting facts.

I've got an idea though....the GOP should let that Louisiana guy do it again...you know.... that guy who is supposed to be their strong candidate for President...the guy to take on Obama....who gave such an incredible and stunning response for the GOP once before.

Click to expand...

I don't know what they're bothering for. Few people are going to pay any attention to Obama's address and even less would watch the Republican response following it.