Medicaid and Texas

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
I think Ms Sherrod has had her 15 minutes of fame but I suspect she is going to milk this cow to the last drop
Posted by Veek

Veek, what a classy guy!

Here is a lady, who's job it was to help people in financial difficulty (all people), and according to most did a pritty good job of it.

Then along comes a selfish concervative who by his own admission wants to show that the NAACP is just as racist as the tea party. This guy goes out and edits a speach from several years go and slanders her in front of the world, makes her out to be racist in front of the world, looses her career and is fired in front of the world.

This selfish consirvatve would have been happy for it to end there with her life ruined. If the honest press had not looked into this further thats how it would have ended!

And you have the nerve to say she is "milking this cow"! Shame on you!!!!

I think this is another very good example of selfish conservative politics, anything to get ahead, if a few good people get ruined, we dont care!
 
Last edited:

Pat

Supporter
Jim,
I find Fox is more accurate than most. They also were quick to correct the context error on Ms Sherrod.
As has been stated before, I find it's best to consider as many sources as possible then reach my own conclusion. I'm always more impressed when others argue the facts, not attack the source. Remember it was the National Inquirer that broke the news on the proclivities of John Edwards, not the mainstream media. Had the main streamers been accurate and reported his dalliances timely, Hilliary would have gotten the early momentum and arguably, the nomination, not Obama. I suspect we would all have been better off had that happened.

Have you ever lived in Texas? I grew up there. Beautiful place.
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
When do we talk about the "Texas" part of "Medicade and Texas”? If they secede, I plan to move there.

Well, the "conservative" governor of Texas has started, so to speak.

Texas is the only state to refuse to take part in a federally funded education program. Gov. Perry says he refused the money b/c (to paraphrase here) ....it would not allow Texas to set its own education curriculum/standards; rather, Texas would have to meet standards set by the federal department of education.

What he seems to remain conveniently unaware of is that Texas already has to adhere to the federal education standards of "No Child Left Behind" (another unfunded mandate foisted upon educators by the "conservative" regime headed by Gee-DUB).

This was a huge hunk of money, IIRC it was in the $700M range. Texas is reported to be doing well economically in this "downturn", yet many school districts statewide are refusing to follow the state law that teachers be given "step" raises for each year of their years of service in addition to the minimal increase in the state's portion of the teachers' salaries (which increases each year). Without that additional federal money each year, school districts are having to downsize and that means layoffs.....teachers are already under-employed (not necessarily underpaid on an hourly/daily basis, but where else do you find a field where a college degree is the minimum requirement and in which you are only allowed to work 185 days a year?), and now their classloads are being increased to make up for fact that fewer teachers have to cover the same number (and increasing numbers in my area) of students.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Texas_refuses_federal_school_funds.html

Teachers, who are already the largest group affected by "burnout", students, all seem to be losing b/c our "conservative" governor wants to retain Texas' "independence".

Hogwash!!!!! However, if you really want to endure the diminishing returns of an already overburdened education system (part of which seems to me to be increased levels of crime, resulting from the poverty those minimally educated individuals have to endure), by all means move on down here and see how you like it. Sure seems to me like we're well on our way to "secession"......for better or worse, come on down and make up your own mind!

Doug
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
I'm always more impressed when others argue the facts, not attack the source. Remember it was the National Inquirer that broke the news on the proclivities of John Edwards, not the mainstream media.

FACTS! What facts. Veek are you saying that we should not attack the source of these lies????What have you been smoking.

Are you really trying to compare honest investigating done in the Edwards case this these liers?
 
FACTS! What facts. Veek are you saying that we should not attack the source of these lies????What have you been smoking.

Jim,
I hope that you managed this much outrage on bad press when Michael Moore was strutting his lies and innuendo.
Garry
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Absolutly, Gary, I place Michael Moore right up there with the worst of the half truth, out of context, missleading folks like Limbaugh, Hanity, Beck and O'Riely.
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Jim,
I hope that you managed this much outrage on bad press when Michael Moore was strutting his lies and innuendo.
Garry

Absolutely, Garry. Bad journalism is bad journalism, regardless of the political orientation of the source.

Cheers!

Doug
 

Pat

Supporter
FACTS! What facts. Veek are you saying that we should not attack the source of these lies????What have you been smoking.

Are you really trying to compare honest investigating done in the Edwards case this these liers?

That's exactly what I'm saying Jim. Attack the lies not the source, share the truth as you see it. I for one would be interested. Address the facts and the credibility of the source becomes apparent. So far, I've found Fox news (versus the commentators) to be fairly even handed. For that reason, I especially like Chris Wallace but think Hannity is a boob.

But most important (to me anyway) I have a crush on the female anchors.
The ones on CNN and especially MSNBC would make a train take a dirt road. ;)
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Attack the lies not the source, share the truth as you see it.

While that may be a nice idea, without the source there would have been no lies......IMHO the source is worse than the lie, the source represented what was a manipulated event as factual.....and some of the most guilty are those who have no political experience, nothing in the way of public service to qualify them to host a political show (I can't bring myself to refer to FNN as "news" any more) other than that they have an opinion.

Imagine what kind of veracity those kind of people have in my eyes :laugh: !

While I think Rush Limbaugh is rather "vile" in that the "stuff" he rants is just that....at least he freely admits he is not a politician, rather he refers to himself as a comedian and an entertainer. At least he's honest in that respect.....whether the "stuff" he forwards on his show passes the sniff test or not.

I say attack the source of the lies and insist that they recant....

Doug
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Jim,
I hope that you managed this much outrage on bad press when Michael Moore was strutting his lies and innuendo. posted by Garry<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Gary

Have you noticed that no one here starts threads using missleading, half truth, out of context data from Michael Moore. Why do you suppose that is?

But rest asured that if someone did that I would call them on it.
 

Pat

Supporter
Discredit the lie, and the source is irrelevant. Attack only the source and it's notoriety generates interest.
If Fox (or MSNBC, CNN etc.) is lying, call them on the lie. Attack the source??? About what???? You are not providing any context. It sounds like you may be on the “suppress Fox News” bandwagon.
Personally, I’m always leery of those that want to suppress information; historically that’s the work of oppressors. What’s next, burning books? I’m neither impressed or influenced by ad hominem attacks. But Fox has a right to speak it as much as ABC, NBC and CBS, in fact more so since they are on cable and are not required broadcast licensing – yet... Their viewership suggests their appeal is quite broad so their formula seems to work.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

Jim, Ann Coulter isn’t my type (too shrill) but like Glenn Beck she’s fun to listen to. My affections are devoted to Megyn Kelly and Jane Skinner at Fox.
As far as Ms Skinner "milking the cow, by my count she's been on three talk shows, has thus far refused the administration's job offer and although she's been apologized to repeatedly and vindicated in the media, she stated is contemplating legal action. I noticed that Stanley McChrystal has yet to book his guest shot on the Vue.
You can hear the moos from here... Jim, were you so sympathetic when Scooter Libby was vindicated for outing Valerie Plame? He still got convicted for not remembering who said what to whom on what day and ruined.
 
Last edited:

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Discredit the lie, and the source is irrelevant.

In terms of responsible journalism, you have it backwards.

It's all about the source, and information from even reliable sources is usually independently verified before that information is made public.

It's all about veracity.....believability.....without that, FNN and the other op-ed shows are exactly what you said about Ann Coulter and Glen Beck....fun to watch, but nothing more. They are simply entertainment and have no right to call themselves journalists unless they practice standard journalistic procedures. To spread lies and then cry "mea culpa" when their irresponsibility is made evident does not fall under the category of "responsible journalism".

Doug
 

Pat Buckley

GT40s Supporter
I think its farily obvious that all these people made the same mistake, they believed what the heard from a concirvative source.

I think everyone has learned a great lesson here, DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU HEAR ON FOX! Do not believe anything you hear from selfish concervatives until it has been confirmed!


....and by extension, you can believe EVERYTHING you hear on NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN?
 
Guys, we seem to be having a pretty good discussion over news sources. We also know that main line media provide the stories they find relevant to their editorial policy. I have seen that with BBC, RAI, RT, Al Jazeera, Fox, CNN etc.

How can we determine what is a lie? If you call a news channel's false, how do you know that your source of news is true to fact?

How can we know or disprove that one news source doesn't independent verify the information? From what Beck says, they verify all of their sources.

I can say that I have heard Jesse Jackson speak on BBC Radio 4 and he sounded very very liberal. When he speaks on other channels, he doesn't sound as radical.

Guys like Limbaugh and Beck, while claiming not to be politicians, call the truth as they see it, and they have that right of expression.

The question is: how do we know truth when we hear it? I think Pontius Pilate had the same question of Jesus of Nazareth.
 
Last edited:
The first rule of thumb today is don't believe "breaking news" in todays fast paced news cycle. Wait until the story has been through a couple of cycles and has been tested by more scruntiny. Then you will get a picture of what is really happening. In the rush to tell a "breaking news" story, the current editors just don't take the time to verify facts like a program such as 60 Minutes. Even then, they get it wrong, but their mistakes are less frequent since they have a financial interests in the truth.
Garry
 
Let me tell you a little story about editorial policy and opinions of people. Garry is right.

You all remember health care legislation. One of the reasons I was such a prolific writer on Al's thread was because I wanted to learn how the system worked.

When I visited a cousin in Italy, where health care is a right, he said to me the following:
"how is it that the USA is the most advanced country and yet doesn't have health care with 40 million people uninsured." It turns out that RAI probably didn't understand the complexity of the US health care system. Once I explained that in the USA, one could opt out of a health care plan and take the money and run. Yes, non-insured can go to an ER and get fixed, and the insurance industry is controlled by state.

His news sources are either RAI or SKY, and they may have not understood the system or didn't care to represent the US system as it is.

Once I gave me more info, he never questioned me again.

Here is another one on information and truth. This is about the Lockerbie bomber being released, the news source is Australian, and I'll bet you won't here this in the USA, unless Fox picks it up.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...baset-al-megrahi/story-e6frg6so-1225896741041
 
Last edited:

Pat

Supporter
Well the fact pattern certainly is interesting.

The Center for Responsive politics report shows that BP and its employees gave more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to president Barack Obama. "Donations come from a mix of employees and the company's political action committees; $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals."

Could it be that the administration soft pedaled the objections to the release of
Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in support of then political contributor and pre-oil spill ally BP?

Nahhhh, they wouldn't do that, would they??
 
Back
Top