MediaMatters:"Fox spent weeks promoting apparent tea party scam."

[#98QBKiller]

Didn't Fox News also get busted using footage from the main DC Tea Party last year when covering smaller city's tea parties, just to make them look bigger? I'm pretty sure there was footage of the Fox News crew pumping up these small crowds too and telling them to get louder for the camera.

It's so annoying to see these douchebags compare themselves to actual Patriots of the American Revolution.

[Larry]

What people don't realize is how supposedly "independent" media is co-opted by Republicans. I'm talking about talk radio and the top blogs. On my radio dial daily I hear Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, as well as Medved, Mike Gallagher and Laura Ingraham. None of these people advocate anything other than "Democrats suck, the GOP is better". I naturally have a right-tilting lean, but it is honestly sickening.

When I think of national "independent" radio hosts... just about the only one I can think of as not hard-core affiliated with GOP is Michael Savage... he's way to the right of them on the neocon scale. Maybe Mark Levin? But he has advocated much of the same.

There's only one radio host I have a tremendous amount of respect for, and he distributes online only.

I haven't listened to talk radio for a few years, but one that I thought was pretty good was Neal Boortz, a Libertarian out of Atlanta. (His show is syndicated from 10:00 - 1:00, Eastern. But as I understand it, virtually all of his outlets either don't carry the third hour, or tape the third hour for later broadcast, to avoid conflicting with Rush.)

Yeah, he supports the Republicans a lot more often than the D's. (And, IMO, for the last few years I heard him (say, 06 and 07) he moved a lot closer to the R's.) But I think a big part of that is because he agrees with the R's on the issues that got talked about the most.

He thinks the R's are right in terms of the WoT, and taxation, (he's a fair tax crusader). And those subjects get talked about on his show a lot. OTOH, he has utter contempt for the creationists, and the "preservation of marriage", and pretty much all of the Religious Right. He thinks the "War on Drugs" is idiotic. He has stated that in his legal opinion (he's a lawyer), that the words "under God" in the Pledge are the clearest example of a violation of the First Amendment in the history of this nation.

But his show talks about the WoT and taxes a lot more than it talks about the Pledge or gay marriage. So if you listen to his show for a week, you'll hear him agreeing with the R's a lot more than he disagrees.

(I observe the same type of thing regarding myself, here in Tailgate. My position on gay marriage, and torturing prisoners, and global warming, put me squarely at odds with the R's on here. OTOH, talk about illegal immigration, and it's usually me, Navy Dave, and 81 against everybody else. Larry's idea for welfare reform would probably get me labeled a Nazi. But Tailgate has a lot more gay marriage threads than it has welfare reform threads, which causes a whole bunch of people to label me as a D partisan.)

[Larry]

You've obviously not been paying attention since 2006...

Yeah, you're right.

A whole bunch of Republican partisans started complaining about the only Republican in the US who was prohibited from running for office. Right when the Republican Party told them to.

[mbws]

Given Rush Limbaugh's recent health problems, can't we just put politics on hold for a while? I mean, the man almost died.

Almost doesn't count.

Maybe he should stay home.

[Burgold]

Didn't Fox News also get busted using footage from the main DC Tea Party last year when covering smaller city's tea parties, just to make them look bigger? I'm pretty sure there was footage of the Fox News crew pumping up these small crowds too and telling them to get louder for the camera.

Yes, they did.

[Hubbs]

(I observe the same type of thing regarding myself, here in Tailgate. My position on gay marriage, and torturing prisoners, and global warming, put me squarely at odds with the R's on here. OTOH, talk about illegal immigration, and it's usually me, Navy Dave, and 81 against everybody else. Larry's idea for welfare reform would probably get me labeled a Nazi. But Tailgate has a lot more gay marriage threads than it has welfare reform threads, which causes a whole bunch of people to label me as a D partisan.)

If it makes you feel better, Larry, I've always seen you as one of the least partisan people here - and we all know that my opinion is more important than anyone else's.

[jnhay]

Given Rush Limbaugh's recent health problems, can't we just put politics on hold for a while? I mean, the man almost died.

What does Rush Limbaugh have to do with anything?

[Prosperity]

Given Rush Limbaugh's recent health problems, can't we just put politics on hold for a while? I mean, the man almost died.

best news I've heard in a long time

[Baculus]

Bac I owe you an apology for my posts earlier. Was having a bad 15 minutes and you took the wrath of it. I apologize for my poor posting conduct and personal attacks.

It is all good, amigo! I offer an apology for my overly-indignant stance as well, and I appreciate your sincerity. It takes a upstanding man to offer an olive branch.

[Baculus]

That was good for a laugh. You can say you are until you are blue in the face, but your posts certainly don't bear that out.

Pffft, like you would know. What, are you Mr. Final Arbitrator on matters? Now that is a good laugh -- you can think that until you are blue in the face.

This is the term I have coined for my stance from over the last year: Progressive libertarian. Maybe you are too constrained by your thinking to understand what that means . . .

[Baculus]

I like to flip back and forth between Fox and CNN

I find listening to Fox talk about Obama is like listening to Maher talk about religion or the flu shot.

I do that as well. It is sometimes interesting, almost amusing, hearing the differences in their reporting.

[Baculus]

Don't forget this little gem which will result in calls for more bailout money for states.

The States and the Stimulus

How a supposed boon has become a fiscal burden.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704152804574628633460370644.html

a big story of 2010 will be how all that free money has set the states up for an even bigger mess this year and into the future.

The combined deficits of the states for 2010 and 2011 could hit $260 billion, according to a survey by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Well, this article is a bit disingenuous. For example, look at this section: "The stimulus offered $80 billion for Medicaid to cover health-care costs for unemployed workers and single workers without kids. But in 2011 most of that extra federal Medicaid money vanishes. Then states will have one million more people on Medicaid with no money to pay for it."

The article doesn't say if these benefits were extended because of the current circumstances. It doesn't state if these programs were newly created programs (if it is Medicaid, it isn't), or benefits extended to those who are unemployed. Which means that those benefits were probably set to expire at some point.

States have extended unemployment benefits, but they are not perpetually financed benefits. They, like the above benefits, are set to expire at some point. If this is the case, I don't why the states would be beholden to continue these programs to that extent.

The article mentions Rick Perry turning down the stimulus funds for this supposed reason, but it doesn't say anything at all about the thousands of thousands of Texans who have been struggling and who could have used some state assistance.

As it is, Texas is one of the most heavily federally subsidized states in the Union. And yet, Perry suddenly decides he doesn't want this money? Well, maybe he should reject the billions each year that the state receives from us -- taxpayers in other states. Does he have the courage to do that? Why doesn't this article mention this detail?

Let's look at poverty levels in Texas:

"Almost six out of 10 Texas public schoolchildren hail from low-income families, marking a troubling spike in poverty over the last decade, a new state report finds."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6795211.html

Yeah -- I am sorry, but I don't think the WSJ article vindicates him.

[twa]

As it is, Texas is one of the most heavily federally subsidized states in the Union. And yet, Perry suddenly decides he doesn't want this money? Well, maybe he should reject the billions each year that the state receives from us -- taxpayers in other states. Does he have the courage to do that? Why doesn't this article mention this detail?

Let's look at poverty levels in Texas:

"Almost six out of 10 Texas public schoolchildren hail from low-income families, marking a troubling spike in poverty over the last decade, a new state report finds."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6795211.html

Yeah -- I am sorry, but I don't think the WSJ article vindicates him.

You are wrong, Texas pays out more than it recieves.

You are also wrong about the programs ending.

You are correct about the poverty level,which is a result of increasing the level and the massive influx into the state.

Check out who creates the most jobs over the last decade my friend and who enjoys a low cost of living and taxation...If this is hell I kinda like it.:cool2:

added

It is kinda ironic you continually throw out that accusation what with Maryland being heavily subsidized with Texas dollars

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Subsidized-Red-Donor-Blue.html

No need to thank us for the extra 20 cents ya'll suck up for every dollar paid:finger:

Perhaps if ya gave it to us we could create even more jobs than we already do:D

[Baculus]

You are wrong, Texas pays out more than it recieves.

As of last year, Texas received 6.8 of total federal domestic spending, which is second only to California. (Granted, these are both large states, which means they will probably receive a lot of funding.) This includes national disaster spending (highest in the nation), veteran's benefits, funding for state-level programs, etc.

You are correct about the poverty level,which is a result of increasing the level and the massive influx into the state.

Sorry, I didn't quite follow you with this statement. Can you rephrase it?

Check out who creates the most jobs over the last decade my friend and who enjoys a low cost of living and taxation...If this is hell I kinda like it.:cool2:

I never said Texas was hell -- well, it might be hell for some of the poorest members of the state. But I was indicating a flaw in the WSJ article.

The next time Texas is hit by the hurricane, are Texans going to agitate against federal aid?

[twa]

The next time Texas is hit by the hurricane, are Texans going to agitate against federal aid?

How about we just keep ya'lls subsidies in a rainy day fund?

Does that mean ya'll are a continuing disaster in need of aid??

Back on topic

The expanded benefits do not expire and the states are left with the tab.

If you have any proof otherwise I would be glad to see it.

[Baculus]

How about we just keep ya'lls subsidies in a rainy day fund?

Does that mean ya'll are a continuing disaster in need of aid??

Regarding your previous post, Marylanders don't make the argument that the state should secede. Perry did. Other Texans do. This flies in defiance of reality that the state receives millions of federal dollars.

Will Perry reject federal funding for disaster aid or border security? Will you?

Back on topic

Can YOU stay on topic? Or, rather, is the use of the "finger" emoticon a demonstration of your inability to understand this issue of debate?

That's weak sauce.

Did you even understand my original post on this subject?

The expanded benefits do not expire and the states are left with the tab.

If you have any proof otherwise I would be glad to see it.

Maryland is an example of this -- its unemployment benefits extensions ends after twenty seven weeks or so from the point of extension.

This WSJ article, unto itself, didn't offer any "proof" -- it talked about state shortfalls in funding, then pointed to the stimulus as being partially responsible, and then it indicates that Perry was justified in refusing federal dollars.

[twa]

Regarding your previous post, Marylanders don't make the argument that the state should secede. Perry did. Other Texans do. This flies in defiance of reality that the state receives millions of federal dollars.

Will Perry reject federal funding for disaster aid or border security? Will you?

Can YOU stay on topic? Or, rather, is the use of the "finger" emoticon a demonstration of your inability to understand this issue of debate?

That's weak sauce.

Did you even understand my original post on this subject?

Maryland is an example of this -- it's unemployment benefits extensions ends after twenty seven weeks or so from the point of extension.

This WSJ article, unto itself, didn't offer any "proof" -- it talked about state shortfalls in funding, then pointed to the stimulus as being partially responsible, and then it indicates that Perry was justified in refusing federal dollars.

Obviously MD knows it needs to stay a state to suck money from other states.

Why would they give up a cash cow?

Why should he reject the funding WE fund,the more I think about Texas only getting 6.8% after all we pay in,the more of a injustice it appears.

No wonder Perry talked of getting out:hysterical:

[Baculus]

Obviously MD knows it needs to stay a state to suck money from other states.

Why would they give up a cash cow?

Why should he reject the funding WE fund,the more I think about Texas only getting 6.8% after all we pay in,the more of a injustice it appears.

No wonder Perry talked of getting out:hysterical:

ONLY 6.8%? That's more funding then 48 other states in the nation receive, including many blue states who pay more then than fair share of the federal bill. Except they don't scream and threaten "secession" whenever they have a temper tantrum.

That's pathetic. "We want more federal money, even though we don't want any more federal money, you communists!" That makes no sense what-so-ever. But hey, what do I expect from right-wingers? Logic?

Also, as usual, you were incapable of answering my questions. More weak sauce.

And you think it's "hysterical" that Perry mentioned even mentioned the "secession" word? :doh:

It is obvious that you don't understand this entire thread. The subject went from Fox News promoting some questionable tea party group, to this. It is also obvious that you, and other conservatives on this board, don't genuinely care either way.

[Smoot Point Really]

I'm curious what people who are on board with this thought when MSNBC was pimping Health care...

[twa]

ONLY 6.8%? That's more funding then 48 other states in the nation receive, including many blue states who pay more then than fair share of the federal bill. Except they don't scream and threaten "secession" whenever they have a temper tantrum.

That's pathetic. "We want more federal money, even though we don't want any more federal money, you communists!" That makes no sense what-so-ever. But hey, what do I expect from right-wingers? Logic?

Also, as usual, you were incapable of answering my questions. More weak sauce.

And you think it's "hysterical" that Perry mentioned even mentioned the "secession" word? :doh:

It is obvious that you don't understand this entire thread. The subject went from Fox News promoting some questionable tea party group, to this. It is also obvious that you, and other conservatives on this board, don't genuinely care either way.

Yes only 6.8% is a bit light in my estimation when we pay in a great deal,and do not get more than we pay like MARYLAND does.

Perhaps if you wished me to stay on topic you wouldn't make FALSE accusations in the first place?

Are your eyes brown?

[Hubbs]

ONLY 6.8%? That's more funding then 48 other states in the nation receive, including many blue states who pay more then than fair share of the federal bill. Except they don't scream and threaten "secession" whenever they have a temper tantrum.

Bac, you've said this several times, but I believe Texas pays more to the federal government than it gets from the federal government, which seems to be what twa is trying to point out. The fact that Texas receives the second-largest percentage of funding is pretty natural, given that it's the second-largest state. You're not using relative numbers.

[Bang]

I'm curious what people who are on board with this thought when MSNBC was pimping Health care...

I think most folks here recognize MSNBC as a Democrat shill.

Some die hards won't, but they are. However, I do not see them using some of the flat out deceptions that Fox does, like fluffing crowds, purposely misinforming, etc.

They're no saints, that's for sure. Sometimes it seems as if their existence is to sit and point at Fox, I know that is a lot of Olbermann's shtick.

~Bang

[Baculus]

Yes only 6.8% is a bit light in my estimation when we pay in a great deal,and do not get more than we pay like MARYLAND does.

Perhaps if you wished me to stay on topic you wouldn't make FALSE accusations in the first place?

Are your eyes brown?

The original topic was "Fox spent weeks promoting apparent tea party scam." THAT was the topic at hand. Your response? To post a WSJ article related to the stimulus. Your response? To deflect the argument into a different argument all together.

And you have been the king of "false accusations," with your continual pushing of "death panel" arguments, even when you have been proven to be entirely incorrect. Even when your position has no basis in fact or reality. You take a cue from your right-wing heroes when you to this, and it is not surprising.

Just like Fox News when it was pushing the bogus Tea Party groups, as the article from my original post implied. Apparently you are fine with this, so you have nothing negative to say about it.

This was my original statement: "As it is, Texas is one of the most heavily federally subsidized states in the Union. And yet, Perry suddenly decides he doesn't want this money? Well, maybe he should reject the billions each year that the state receives from us -- taxpayers in other states. Does he have the courage to do that? Why doesn't this article mention this detail?"

What I said was true -- it DOES receive a lot of federal dollars. Billions, in fact. The state also wins billions of dollars in federal defense contracts, which is OUR dollars, meaning the tax payers. Heck, in spite of the WSJ article's implications, Perry, in fact, seeked stimulus money after the fact:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/16/perry-follows-protocol/

Again, you also totally ignore my original point, which would have undermined your response in the first place, which is why you refused to give an answer. That entire point went straight over your head.

I will add, though, that Texas is not Alaska -- it does not receive a much larger share then it pays in taxes. It would have been dishonest on my part if I made that implication. I have nothing against Texas -- I just think gov. Perry is a hypocrite.

[Baculus]

Bac, you've said this several times, but I believe Texas pays more to the federal government than it gets from the federal government, which seems to be what twa is trying to point out. The fact that Texas receives the second-largest percentage of funding is pretty natural, given that it's the second-largest state. You're not using relative numbers.

My original point was this: Like many states, Texas does receive federal money. Yes, it is a large state, so it will receive a large chunk of it. But a fair chunk of Texas's industry is based in federal spending, which was the intent with the "federal subsidized" wording. In fact, Texas is only behind California in Federal and DOD contracts, which supports Texan free enterprise.

So yeah, TWA can say "give us that money so we can do something with it," but it's still American taxpayer money from Maryland (a state he has mocked) which is supporting -- subsidizing -- industry in his state.

[Baculus]

I'm curious what people who are on board with this thought when MSNBC was pimping Health care...

MSNBC didn't "pimp it" with totally false and hyperbolic accusations. They also didn't help "pimp" their position with some supposed "grass roots" group, which was actually an astroturf money front.

Also, MSNBC will actually bring conservatives on their network to debate this issue. What does Fox do? They bring on only conservatives to argue the matter while "pimping" their bogus "fair and balanced" act.

They don't even try, because their viewers will swallow whatever is fed to them.

BTW, I don't think anyone -- including you -- didn't even try to explain why Fox would do this.