Slashdot Mirror

Convictions for corruption are probably the worst metric to use to measure if a state is corrupt of not. It assumes that the corruption somehow stops at the court system. I assure you, it does not. Judges in Texas are famously corrupt.

https://www.statesman.com/news...

http://lawflog.com/?p=1957

https://www.texasobserver.org/...

Actually, it is pretty well spread across Texas. That is why a number of of us are like wtf. The opinion here is he is corrupt:

Abused eminent domain against the hispanic community for his father in law's profit
Has a record of DWI and Burglary

You never hear about mass shootings in Texas

Oh really? Never hear about them?

I guess this list is bogus. No mass shootings you say? Perhaps you're not looking hard enough.

Seems in Texas, "other people's money" hasn't been an issue. But we do not just hand out "welfare" to everybody who asks here...

Texas throws around a lot of other people's money to corporations. In fact, they lead the nation in giving other people's money to corporations.

http://www.bizjournals.com/san...

https://www.texasobserver.org/...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12...

Texas? Are you refering to the state that has gone out of it''s way to hamper women's civil rights by enacting new barriers to abortion?

Or is it Texas - the state that has made it illegal for people who are legally women to use the women's washroom?

Or is it Texas - the state that just loves to hate on anyone not white?

Texax - where if you're not white and male, you're sh*t. No thanks.

But things are always bigger in Texas. The L.A. leak gets more attention for its location

but other than that there are no downsides.

Texas ranks in or near the bottom 20% in the nation in education and access to health care, and its poverty level puts in 46th (out of 50), in between Arkansas and Alabama. It has the highest uninsured rate in the nation. It leads all other states in the number of executions of innocent people. Texas has the highest percentage of children who don't have any access to health care.

  http://educationblog.dallasnew...

http://www.texasobserver.org/t...

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/0...

http://watchdogblog.dallasnews...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

Among Texas' other poor rankings are 50th for the EPA's toxic exposure score, 47th for total toxic chemicals released into waterways, 46th for cancer-causing chemicals released, 45th for developmental toxins released, and 49th for reproductive toxins released. So, when you say "diverse ecosystems" I assume you mean there are some places you can live and get cancer and some places you just cannot live.

Texas ranks 50th (out of 50) for greenhouse emissions.

In summary, poverty, poorly educated people, sick kids and an environment disaster not to mention the climate that you mention putting Texas near the bottom of the comfort index rankings do not add up to Texas being a "nice place to live". The highly-touted "Texas Miracle" is a lie.

And here are some unretouched photos of people Texas has elected governor:

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sit...

http://www.highwaygirl.com/hwg...

And the current governor believes a U.S. military exercise in the region is really an all-out invasion by Obama and the US government to take over Texas. Or, he just says that to pander to his pig-ignorant electorate.

I'm sorry friend, but Texas is a shit-hole. My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone who lives there. In Jesus' name.

Seriously, it's time for parents to quit letting these fucking brain-dead bureaucrats pull this shit. If you're thinking of voting for any politician who takes contributions from the the NEA, then FUCK YOU.

You realize that the NEA doesn't set local school and/or school-board administrative policies - right? They focus on things related to actual education - something Texas ranks 50th (last) among the 50 states, according to this Texas Observer article:

The Texas Legislative Study Group released its 2013 “Texas on the Brink” report at the end of last week. The report is an annual study to determine Texas’ rankings among the 50 states and the District of Columbia on health care, education, and the environment.

How’s Texas doing? Not so great: The state ranks 50th in percentage of high school graduates among its populace, first in amount of carbon emissions, first in hazardous waste produced, last in voter turnout, first in percentage of people without health insurance, and second in percentage of uninsured kids.

... Texas’ investment per student is 27 percent less than the national average

However -- because of the Supreme Court decision in the Obamacare case, the Medicaid expansion is voluntary for the states, and half the states (mostly Republican) refused to expand it. So in those states, poor people really are stuck. They do get kicked out of hospitals and get left to die of treatable conditions. http://www.texasobserver.org/a...

I live in one of those States that refused to expand Medicaid. I live in Idaho. I don't think we could have afforded to do it. Because of another Court case a few years ago, the State of Idaho now has to pay for education in Idaho out of the General Fund. It used to be mostly funded by property taxes at the local level, but now it is funded by Sales Tax at the State level. We also have a Constitutional requirement in Idaho to balance the budget every year. Approximately 60% of the State budget is now Education. Every other State Agency has seen their budget slashed by about 30% over the past 10 years.

And then the Federal Government orders the State to massively expand Medicaid. My State just doesn't have the resources to do it. It isn't because people don't care, we just don't have the income. 90% of the Students in my School District are on free or reduced lunch. Median Family income in my town is $31,000 per year. 20% of the people in my community live below the poverty line. There isn't a whole lot of room to add more taxes to expand another Government program.

If our State was doing better economically, there would be more support for expanding Medicaid. But we are all suffering. The idea of having to pay even more taxes is daunting.

The truly poor still have access to Medicaid in Idaho. The program didn't go away. It just didn't expand it to people above the poverty line.

...forcing people to get insurance, so that they pay ahead of time, seems like the next best thing.

So tell me, now, how you're going to force people who are living on what they can dig out of the dumpsters behind markets because they don't have any money to buy food to buy health insurance?

Well, you're half right. People who are digging food out of dumpsters will usually be eligible for Medicaid, and making up to about 100% of the poverty level, will not have to pay anything. People who make up to 250% of the poverty level will get significant subsidies to buy Obamacare.

The problem is the people between poverty level and lower middle class. Obamacare pays to expand Medicaid to cover people making between 100% and 250% of the poverty level.

However -- because of the Supreme Court decision in the Obamacare case, the Medicaid expansion is voluntary for the states, and half the states (mostly Republican) refused to expand it. So in those states, poor people really are stuck. They do get kicked out of hospitals and get left to die of treatable conditions. http://www.texasobserver.org/a...

So you're half right. In Democratic states, people get Medicaid, and in Republican states, they do without.

Obamacare is a terrible health plan. Most people who understand the health care system wanted a single payer plan. They predicted that Obamacare would be expensive, lousy insurance. To pay for it, they squeeze most of the money from the lower class and middle class.

George W. Bush was — a fairly successful — governor (Executive) of a major State.

Well... it's Texas. From Wikipedia:

Compared to the governors of other U.S. states, the governorship of Texas is a fairly weak office. The Lieutenant Governor of Texas, who presides over the state Senate, is considered a more powerful political figure, being able to exercise greater personal prerogatives.

And, according to this reference, the Texas legislature only meets every two years for 140 days, so how fucking busy could the Governor actually be, except for executing people and fund raising.

And, as far as Texas itself goes, according to The Texas Observer, The Texas Legislative Group produced a study saying:

How’s Texas doing? Not so great: The state ranks 50th in high school graduation rate, first in amount of carbon emissions, first in hazardous waste produced, last in voter turnout, first in percentage of people without health insurance, and second in percentage of uninsured kids.

So, even ignoring their tendency to push Creationism over Science in their school curriculum, Texas is certainly a big state, but "major" is questionable - unless you mean major failure... But, if that's what the people want... you can't argue with stupid.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/201311071754973439.html

http://www.texasobserver.org/seeds-of-discontent/

http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/farmers-sue-monsanto-over-seed-contamination.aspx

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-court-plaintiffs-seed-747/

That's the funny thing; in the other two circumstances you mention, you would legally be in the clear. If you didn't order something, and someone delivers it/provides service/whatever, its not your problem. The worst they can do is turn off the service, ask for the product back, or ask you to pay them. You aren't legally bound to do so.

Monsanto, however, has already won cases involving the scenario I had described.

Lemme quote:
"T.O.: How did Monsanto find out?
P.S.: It came out in my court case that a former employee of Monsanto had rented some of that land a year or two before. He told Monsanto I possibly could have some of Monsanto's Roundup Ready Canola in it. And it was quite obvious when you drove down the main road, you'd see something dead, but plants growing in it, and they were canola.

T.O.: How did Monsanto claim this canola got into your field?
P.S.: By either stealing it-they even went that far-or getting it illegally from a seed-house or whatever. So, anyway, I stood up to Monsanto and said, "No way. I never had any. You destroyed my fifty years of development." So eventually it went to court. But in pretrial just before court... they said that they had absolutely no proof... that I had obtained the seed illegally. But they said that didn't matter. The fact that there are some of their plants growing on my land infringed on their patent.

T.O.: How likely is it that your canola became Roundup resistant by pollination with patented plants?
P.S.: I'd say cross-pollination would be a smaller way. But the big way-my neighbor, we found out in court, had grown it in 1996 right next to me. A whole half-mile. There was a windstorm and a lot of it blew into my field.

T.O.: The pollen blew over?
P.S.: No, the seeds. So the judge ruled it doesn't matter how it got there, even if my crop was cross-pollinated. He said if pure seeds got onto my land and mixed with my plants, my whole crop becomes their property because now you can't distinguish which plants are GMO. So he ruled that all my profits from my 1998 canola crop go to Monsanto-even from fields that were tested and had no contamination.

T.O.: Some plants in your crop might have a single gene that Monsanto spliced into canola. Because Monsanto patented this canola, the presence of a single gene among all these plants, most of which don't have this gene, means that Monsanto owns the whole thing?
P.S.: That's right. You can imagine how far-reaching that decision is. Think about farmers all over the world, people that own trees or plants or flowers: Gene gets in....

T.O.: What sort of agreement do farmers enter into when the buy seed from Monsanto?
P.S.: You sign a contract, and in the contract it says you must allow Monsanto's police to come on your land for three years and you're not allowed to save your own seed. You've always got to go back and buy your seed each year."

Oh, come on, that's not true... The American public is just to apathetic. The governemnt doesn't even seem to be trying to cover anything up anymore.

On a more serious note, the U.S. is probably one of the worst developed nations in this regard.

Plenty of land stealing in America's history as well(see Native Americans).

They don't mess around in Texas. Antidote to hero worship

Ok, let's put it in plain English, since you "pro-violencers" can apparently only comprehend monosyllabic words:

Because we need a well regulated militia, the people need the right to bear arms.

Stop me if I've lost you. Ok, the second clause is valid only if the first is true. You know, "If today is Tuesday, I will go to the Gym." If we know that today is in fact Tuesday, then we can infer that I will go to the gym. This is 9th grade logic. So, if it is true that we need a well regulated militia, then it is also true that we need to bear arms. If we know that it is not Tuesday, then we really cannot draw any conclusions from the statement. We know that we no longer need "a well regulated militia," so where does that leave us with the right to bear arms? Well, it's sort of nebulous, but basically it leaves us in the position of weighing the pros and cons of the 2nd amendment as if it were being proposed today.

Since the justification for such a heinous clause in the Constitution is no longer applicable, the clause itself is no longer applicable, and the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. If it were proposed today it would likely (hopefully) be shot down in flames (NPI).

And just to quell the arguments of those who claim that having guns in a home somehow deters crime or makes you safer, let's look at Texas, where "everybody" has a gun: "Texas' current incarceration rate is 80 percent higher than New York's, yet Texas' crime rate is 30 percent higher; in 1998, the murder rate was 25 percent higher." [bolding mine] So they have a 25% higher murder rate in Texas, where "Everybody" has a gun, than in NY, supposedly the haven of murder and rape.

So it is evident that guns are of negligible -- if any -- value to the modern populace, and have led to countless senseless deaths over the past century. Why the pro-murder people maintain their love of guns "for sport" or whatnot is truly something I shall never understand.

As for your comment about the college: really, 9th grade. You should look into it.

No offense, but the term ignorant comes to mind when I read your comment. Just so you know, there are plenty of references to my "Completely Untrue Statement". Seriously, if you want to whine about your tax dollars, find out how much of them go to subsidize big oil and then wonder why people think and say negative things about the Loner Star State.