bail out the newspapers? So now we have the government in charge of 1. Banks 2. Large manufacturing businesses and now they want to run news outlets too...oh and let's make sure the Fairness Doctrine is in place too - for ALL news outlets to include the internet and the blogs.

And after that, let's make gun control to the point where NO ONE other than law enforcement or military can carry any weapons.

After that...well, those of you who know your German history will know what comes next.

He MADE it his when he pushed for it.

Took him long enough to sign too...particularly since he and the Congressional Democrats said the world would end as we know it if it wasn't done immediately.

Now since it took Obama FOUR days after it passed a House and Senate vote, just WHY is it that they could not have delayed the vote for a day or two...just to allow those who were to vote on it to READ the darn thing????

Hummm...doesn't show signs of going back up anytime soon either, does it.

Ah well, we were told not to expect a quick fix...AFTER the bill passed Congress.

So again to my question, if Obama was going to wait 4 days to sign the bill, WHY couldn't the House and Senate hold off on the vote for a day or two, since it appears it wasn't as imperative to pass as President Obama indicated.

Or WAS it that imperative but President Obama wanted to dangle it over the people's heads for a short while?

So you don't think it matters if your representative knew what was in the bill he was voting for said?

Well hell, why not just tell him to vote yes on everything and call it a day?

And again, if this bill was so damn urgent that Obama told Congress they needed to get off their backsides and vote on it, then WHY did HE sit on the thing 4 days AFTER it passed?

He could have signed it Saturday, or Sunday or even on Monday as he scheduled it to be.

There's an old saying "the Devil is in the details" and if you don't know the details, you may have the Devil to pay.

Let it go. Obviously, dresden08 doesn't care if he's lied to as long as he's lied to by the right people.

BTW Dresden08, I DID care when Bush passed the bank bailout and I emailed all my representatives NOT to vote for it. They all did anyway and those who came up for a vote (Republicans actually) I voted AGAINST.

Didn't matter because they won anyway. But I did tell them to never contact me again for any donations and that I would do everything I could to get them to lose.

Doesn't mean I'll support the Democrat either, if they agree with what's happening now. BOTH sides SUCK right now!

You seem to FORGET the bill was altered prior to the vote...SIGNIFICANTLY altered.

Would YOU sign a contract for a new house or car, if you knew it was altered prior to your signing it? Hell no, you'd want to read it all over again before you put your name on it.

How much MORE SO should our lawmakers be demanding to see what the Hell it is they are signing?!

It was nothing short of Gross Negligence for ANYONE to sign this without looking at it! And worse, when it came to light that the House Speaker not only failed to deliver the compromise to the people voting on it but, as I understand it, she ran it past some LOBBIEST of all people.

No this was Washington at it's worst...and I hope to God what was in that bill will work...because our children and children's children will be paying for our benefit.

Sorry but the Devil is ALWAYS in the details. No matter how much you DON'T want him to be there!

California didn't balance the budget on the backs of the schoolkids...it balanced it's budget on the backs of the TAXPAYERS...who BTW are about to the breaking point.

I would love to see how much migration AWAY from that state has occurred in the last ten years or so.

I suspect the only thing keeping it with so many representatives is the illegal aliens constantly flowing into it. If the federal government ever decides to actually DO something about illegals in this country, I suspect California would lose a great many representatives.

I am again eternally thankful I do not live in that state.

of whether or not President Obama wants the Fairness Doctrine reinstated, there ARE those in Congress who do want it back...and apparently they want it to go further by covering the internet as well. Doesn't sound like a "phantom enemy" to me.

"Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.

Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes."

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/16/in-all-fairness

in which people don't like Obama's plan. Of course this is just CNBC...which MUST be one of those lousy inaccurate conservative sites.

Santelli's Chicago Tea Party

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853