Governor Perry-What a liar

[Poodles 0]

All I hope is that everyone votes. I watched 'ol Kinky on the news today, and he is right about one thing. If you vote your heart, your vote is not wasted. I have been trying to get out the message to vote to all of my friends and family. If enough NON-VOTERS of the past get off their hinneys and vote we can vote Perry out, one way or the other.

As I have said before, I would vote for the Dog-catcher if he was running against Perry.

Hey, you want to know something else I said that really got a debate going..."I think Bush is the anti-Christ." Texans LOVE that... but if you think about it...

[Carlene 12]

Hey, you want to know something else I said that really got a debate going..."I think Bush is the anti-Christ." Texans LOVE that... but if you think about it...

Some guy that agrees with you has created a web site. http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

He's not from Texas, though. In fact, he says most of us are going to hell.

It pains me to say it, since this man obviously dislikes Bush even more than your average, intelligent American, but I think he's about 2 french fries shy of a Happy Meal.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

George W. BuSh is not from Texas. He was born in Connecticut.

Barbara Bush was born in NY.

George H.W. Bush was born in Massachusetts.

[leatha_g 4]

The Anti-Christ will not be from America.

According to the Bible, the Anti-Christ will be from Europe and will "not regard the God of his Fathers".

But I understand your emotions.

[bitteroldhag 0]

An argument can be logically true and factually true.

An argument can be logically true and factually false.

An argument can be logically false and factually true.

An argument can be logically false and factually false.

Many might say that I should have stated the above in a different manner such as:

An argument can be logically valid and factually true.

An argument can be logically valid and factually false.

An argument can be logically invalid and factually true.

An argument can be logically invalid and factually false.

One of the fun games I like to play with the freshmen is the idea of anything being a fact. I like to shatter their ideas by telling that everything is theoretical because we can only know something through our senses and everyone's senses are different. Therefore the world of "fact" is different for each person. So there are really no such things as facts, except on a personal basis. So we lives our lives based on theoretical concepts that we think are facts. To get around this problem, I like to think in terms of probabilities. If there is a 99.9% probability that the sun will come up tomorrow, I think we can treat that as a fact, but there is a .1% chance that it won't come up tomorrow. This moves us into the squishy world of Post-Modernism which is a whole lot of fun, but probably hasn't introduced any really new ideas yet except for Jacques Derrida's binary opposition ideas. He says the first term is privileged in binary oppositions, so he recommends that we turn them around to see things from a different angle. A binary opposition would be something like man/woman. If we turn it around and privilege woman, things change. Still, it irks me when my students are so sure of everything. I like to destroy that to make them think. It works. It freaks them out and they start looking at the world differently. Then I introduce critical thinking to them and they start reasoning about the world. Their reasoning is usually pretty crappy, but at least they try.

At any rate, any argument can be both valid and invalid regardless of facts. A real argument can be valid or invalid based on probability and the idea of relativity. Chew on that awhile, TOM.

[j_war06 0]

Hmm.... I actually like this ^. Because it is true, nothing is totally definant. I really Really like this alot

[mousecrazy 2]

Back to the biased sources:

Carlene, it was not a chastisement, but a point of contention. I was raising the point that the LANGUAGE of the documentation was emotionally charged, and I gave examples. "Bare-bones", and "prohibitive levels" are two phrases that show this bias...they produce an emotional response, but provide no useful information. We find in further research that the prohibitive level was actually a $50 enrollment fee, paid 2 times a year. This may or not be "prohibitive."

Yes, Peggy Venable worked on some Republican campaigns. This does not speak to the facts I presented from the website. In my post, I made a great effort to say that two people with different viewpoints can look at the same statistics and see different things. In my view, I look at the statistics at decreasing CHIP enrollment and see good; you see bad.

Again, I was not chastising you; I was pointing out the bias in the language of the quote.

[Carlene 12]

Back to the biased sources:

Carlene, it was not a chastisement, but a point of contention. I was raising the point that the LANGUAGE of the documentation was emotionally charged, and I gave examples. "Bare-bones", and "prohibitive levels" are two phrases that show this bias...they produce an emotional response, but provide no useful information. We find in further research that the prohibitive level was actually a $50 enrollment fee, paid 2 times a year. This may or not be "prohibitive."

Yes, Peggy Venable worked on some Republican campaigns. This does not speak to the facts I presented from the website. In my post, I made a great effort to say that two people with different viewpoints can look at the same statistics and see different things. In my view, I look at the statistics at decreasing CHIP enrollment and see good; you see bad.

Again, I was not chastising you; I was pointing out the bias in the language of the quote.

You left out a couple of things...

Fact...In 2003 Rick Perry pushed through a 6% cut in the Medicaid budget. How is that a "good" thing for poor children, elderly and disabled?

Fact...The 2003 state legislature enacted the governor's budget to eliminate CHIP coverage for prostheses, physical therapy and private duty nursing; count income for CHIP more strictly; impose a 90 day waiting period for newly-eligible CHIP patients; reduce Medicaid home health coverage for the aged and disabled; end the Medicaid medically needy spend down for families and children; reduce the pregnant women’s Medicaid income level enough to drop 8,300 women monthly; and terminate Medicaid coverage of eyeglasses, hearing aids, chiropractic services, podiatry and some mental health care for adults. Another "good" thing? Tell that to poor children who have to share eyeglasses with their classmates.

Fact...All this caused over 100,000 children to lose health coverage. Not because their parents earned more, but because the state yanked the health care rug out from under them.

Fact...In 2004 the Medicaid agency proposed additional cuts, including limits of $5,000 for liquid assets and $15,000 for a car's value (with 2nd cars worth up to about $4600 allowed) for CHIP. If people were doing so well and drooping off chips voluntarily, why were more cuts needed?

PS...my sourse is not professionally aligned with the Democratic party. As I said, he is an activist for AIDS/HIV victims and worked for the Feds in administering Medicaid programs. He is far less biased than Peggy Venable.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

If you really want the truth, I believe FOX has a website with all the Fair and Balanced facts for 'most any topic.

[Carlene 12]

If you really want the truth, I believe FOX has a website with all the Fair and Balanced facts for 'most any topic.

Oh, yeah....Fox News. They wouldn't know "fair and balanced" if it came up behind them and bit them on the backside.

[mousecrazy 2]

I appreciate the joke about Fox News, although I'm surprised you didn't want to spell it Faux.

Regardless of your take on the stats, there are many people, maybe 50% or more even, who DO think it is good to cut back on Medicaid. Cutting back on the total budget does not mean a cut in benefits. I am sure that if Medicaid is anything at all like my own personal budget, a 6% cut would reflect something like less Starbucks per month.

Rick Perry did not achieve these cuts on his own. You and T.O.M. have not responded to that fact. Do you believe that the governor has the executive power to make these decisions all by himself? Thus, your outright hatred of the man is of a more personal nature, or blatant partisanship. I neither love nor hate the man, but would prefer a more reasonable examination of the issues.

If you have a soft spot for the disabled, that's a nice thing. But is government intervention the best solution, do you think? It appears you believe that government officials and politicians are basically a negative and corrupt lot, most of them, so why throw in with them? How can that be a good thing? So much bureacracy, so much $$ wasted. Wouldn't it be easier for the kids sharing glasses to contact a local Lions Club? I'm serious on this, although I admit to being sarcastic a lot of the time.

I see that you and others truly believe that government should meet the medical needs of all the people, or maybe the poor people, even though I am not sure how we define poor. Or disabled. There are so many ways to define these terms, and they become broader and broader all the time. Personally, I welcome a narrower definition, and I welcome the expectation that families provide for their own. I believe it can be done by most, if it is expected of them to do so. Go ahead and roll your eyes. I know I am very misguided.

[Carlene 12]

Cutting back on the total budget does not mean a cut in benefits. I am sure that if Medicaid is anything at all like my own personal budget, a 6% cut would reflect something like less Starbucks per month.

"Let them eat cake", huh Mouse?

[TruBlueSue 0]

How does cutting the budget NOT mean a cut in benefits? What did they do - fire a bunch of bureaucrats and add their salaries to the total outlay for medical care? I don't think so - and that's why I am not voting for Perry...and the rest of the corrupt bureaucrats voting for payraises for themselves while leaving our kids and elderly unprotected and without basic care.

[Carlene 12]

I was watching CNN while I ironed my DH's jeans (yes....I Iron his jeans, AND his shorts). The discussion was governor's races. I missed the first part but the commentator said that Perry will win - he has 30+ points in the most reliable polls - even though his popular approval rating is less than 50%. Then he said, "But nobody thinks he's Sam Houston - even the Republicans." I love it!!!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Rick Perry did not achieve these cuts on his own. You and T.O.M. have not responded to that fact. Do you believe that the governor has the executive power to make these decisions all by himself?

Well living in Florida, I didn't think I was needed to defend the Governor of Texas, but I was under the impression that both houses of the Texas legislature have Republican majorities.

So you are right, Governor Perry can't take all the blame.

The blame should be shared by:

The Republican controlled House of Representatives

The Republican controlled Senate

And Governor Perry

Vote against all of them.