. >> at blease dewaal can joke about it. it's a good thing. >> i can't imagine mississippi opting out of medicaid. we are a poor state. it's an important program. we just want to run it better. we want to run it better for taxpayers and for our beneficiaries. we can control the cost much, much better if and when the federal government would give us more flexibility or just make it where we didn't have to ask for permission to governor herbert was talking about for eight months to do something very commonsensical. we could come and it is in your budget interest, too. so i am -- i am not an opt out at and i just being forthright about it. >> governor patrick? >> as i said in my opening statement we are so far down the path, this is -- the affordable care act is very familiar to us because and it's free market because we had a reform, we have reform measures in massachusetts that are very like it so this is not so scary to us. i think there is a bigger question here that goes beyond medicaid and goes to the private payers as we

blease in the borders was a few steps behind every other retailer combining all of the additional factors that has been impacting the publishing industry especially the print side in combination with various managerial mismanagement. it really didn't come as a particular surprise border declared chapter 11. >> you mentioned the amazon connection. what exactly did supporters do with amazon and in your view what kind of a mistake was that? >> to reiterate, back in 2001 when borders had its own web site that instead of running their own econ nurse books directly themselves, they passed on to amazon. so recently they were giving up revenue to their competitors in order to easily make certain things easier. but in doing that it was a double bargain because they didn't essentially alone there on online properties. so by the time they changed direction they had i knew ceo who said this isn't a very good idea, but reclaiming it in 2008, by then, amazon already introduced the kindle, barnes and noble's nook was in works would wouldn't be introduced until 29 and when they developed their own e-book

it's all around us, it's in the bible, it's in the greek tragedies, kids playing -- blease to play cowboysand indians but he probably can't do that anymore. but that sort of thing, children engage in the second games. they are not expressive activity as i read the briefs california didn't contest the fact that its activity and expressive activity is going to be under the rubric brick of the first amendment. you're not going to be a will to distinguish because they are interactive which these games are. technically all the media is getting to the interactive. we are living in an interactive world. and the concern that the supreme court had in the united states versus stevens case which was the cruelty to animals of video is the same kind of concern i suspect the majority of the court is going to have with respect to this statute. are we going to discourage activity which is whether you like it or not is a part of our society and something that might be protected by the first amendment. >> this case is not about whether you can make or sell these violent video games or what their children ca

it involved superable years on the plaintiff's side ted olson and david blease, and on the side of those supporting the proposition, chuck cooper, a very known washington, d.c. lawyer. now there were some technical difficulties with considering the posting of the trial proceedings on the administrative offices website which is hosted by youtube but doesn't have the usual youtube markers on that but it is posted on the youtube server so what was at issue at that time was simply a possibility of broadcasting and posting on the internet. but simultaneous with the trial court proceedings, transmission of the proceedings to the remote courthouse is. requests had been received for the transmission to seattle, portland, pasadena and brooklyn. there may have been others the would come along the but in any event those were the ones we were considering. the proponents claimed that the witnesses who were supporting the proposition that had been approved by the majority of the state of california would be intimidated if this posting occurred. they sought to prohibit it and i denied that motion and t

it's all around us, it's in the bible, it's in the greek tragedies, kids playing -- blease to play cowboysand indians but he probably can't do that anymore. but that sort of thing, children engage in the second games. they are not expressive activity as i read the briefs california didn't contest the fact that its activity and expressive activity is going to be under the rubric brick of the first amendment. you're not going to be a will to distinguish because they are interactive which these games are. technically all the media is getting to the interactive. we are living in an interactive world. and the concern that the supreme court had in the united states versus stevens case which was the cruelty to animals of video is the same kind of concern i suspect the majority of the court is going to have with respect to this statute. are we going to discourage activity which is whether you like it or not is a part of our society and something that might be protected by the first amendment. >> this case is not about whether you can make or sell these violent video games or what their children ca

it's all around us, it's in the bible, it's in the greek tragedies, kids playing -- blease to play cowboysand indians but he probably can't do that anymore. but that sort of thing, children engage in the second games. they are not expressive activity as i read the briefs california didn't contest the fact that its activity and expressive activity is going to be under the rubric brick of the first amendment. you're not going to be a will to distinguish because they are interactive which these games are. technically all the media is getting to the interactive. we are living in an interactive world. and the concern that the supreme court had in the united states versus stevens case which was the cruelty to animals of video is the same kind of concern i suspect the majority of the court is going to have with respect to this statute. are we going to discourage activity which is whether you like it or not is a part of our society and something that might be protected by the first amendment. >> this case is not about whether you can make or sell these violent video games or what their children ca

it involved superable years on the plaintiff's side ted olson and david blease, and on the side of those supporting the proposition, chuck cooper, a very known washington, d.c. lawyer. now there were some technical difficulties with considering the posting of the trial proceedings on the administrative offices website which is hosted by youtube but doesn't have the usual youtube markers on that but it is posted on the youtube server so what was at issue at that time was simply a possibility of broadcasting and posting on the internet. but simultaneous with the trial court proceedings, transmission of the proceedings to the remote courthouse is. requests had been received for the transmission to seattle, portland, pasadena and brooklyn. there may have been others the would come along the but in any event those were the ones we were considering. the proponents claimed that the witnesses who were supporting the proposition that had been approved by the majority of the state of california would be intimidated if this posting occurred. they sought to prohibit it and i denied that motion and t