<p>“some people been listening to O’Reilly I guess, this is his topic de jour-”</p>
<p>What does he say? (I rarely watch TV for news.)</p>
<p>bomgeedad - found this in the LA Times. Hispanics and Anglos involved in the scam…but, unless I missed it, no mention of illegal immigrants.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2006/06/23/69769.htm[/url]”>http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2006/06/23/69769.htm</a></p>
<p>In fact, one stage of the scheme involves the ‘victim’ obtaining legal representation and going to court…something it seems most illegals would be loath to do for fear of detection and deportation.</p>
<p>“An attorney is accused of making millions by arranging for victims, many of them illegal immigrants, to file claims in staged wrecks.”
Amanda Covarrubias; Los Angeles Times; Nov 24, 2005; B.1;</p>
<p>Interesting…can’t find the LA Times article, but I found your quote ABOUT the article by the editor at <a href=“http://www.vdare.com%5B/url%5D”>www.vdare.com</a>.</p>
<p><a href=“http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2005/11/[/url]”>http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2005/11/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe, I don’t really have any spiritual beliefs at all about predestination. But whether this is worse than being killed by someone legal, having just known people murdered by someone legal, here is the thing, something always went wrong that shouldn’t have happened or might not have happened in these scenarios. What happened to us shouldn’t have happened either or couldn’t have happened under certain circumstances. But I mean, it happened. That’s the sum of it. It’s surreal, but it happened. And when people were calling for resignations, pointing blame at only one person or a couple of people, they were mainly outsiders and there is this sense of, why? So much went wrong and so many people dropped the ball. This does not really make you feel better or worse. It does not bring them back. </p>
<p>It is always unfortunate when people die in accidents that should not have happened. But they do happen. Someone somewhere gets on a collision course to that point. But this doesn’t make me advocate anything new or different regarding immigration, because we have a high volume of accidents caused by lots of people in this country. I do have a problem with a lot of conditions and cultural issues (our culture) that lead to so many traffic fatalities. The solution to controlling immigration is a little trickier. I am not sure there is a very good solution right now. We have mainly made our bed, in a sense, and are probably going to need a lot of a time, effort, and money to solve the problem some time in the future. I agree it needs to be solved, but the whole issue of “solving it now” is really politically advantageous and always seems very manufactured to me. This didn’t happen overnight, but it’s suddenly become a concern as it’s gotten media attention. Which is fine, but I think that we now have the potential to have people making decisions that aren’t in our long term best interest for short term political gain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s the dishonesty, zoosermom. Fox and in particular, O’Reilly are blatently dishonest. O’Reilly claims women never die in childbirth, that the WH offer for Karl Rove to testify included a written transcript, etc, etc. This isn’t an alternate “point of view”, unless you embrace the whole anti-empiricist viewpoint that any set of “facts” is as good as another. Otherwise, you’re stuck on lies.</p>
<p>(And no, they weren’t errors. O’Reilly would have issued retractions, setting the record straight, if they were errors. They were attempts, and probably successful ones, to deceive his viewers).</p>
<p>"O’Reilly are blatently dishonest. "</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s the full answer, I really don’t. But I have said before that I don’t listen to O’Reilly because he’s just too loud. That said, I’ve heard some whoppers on Olberman and I don’t see the right foaming at the mouth over MSNBC. I think the fact that there is another viewpoint presented really disturbs some people and, again, I don’t understand why.</p>
<p>I’m beginning to believe that Fox and MSNBC deserve one another. The constant back-and-forth is like two siblings bickering. Last year I thought that O’Reilly’s disgust of Olbermann bordered on paranoia. Now, watching MSNBC lately, I find the repeated personal gripes about Fox to be annoying in that they obscure more relavant points. Dan Abrahams [of MSNBC], you’ve fallen a bit and I hope you can pick yourself up.</p>
<p>I was hit by an illegal - using a fake international license (just guess at the country of issuance), “out of state” (later identified as stolen) plates on the car, fake insurance card. The police documented everything. But, three days later, when I went to collect a copy of the accident report informed me that that everything presented at the scene of the accident was “fake”, stolen", “created”, etc. The two guys involved didn’t appear nervous at all. </p>
<p>I’ve had three friends involved in similar accidents in the past year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How could you tell? The right foams at the mouth over everything in the media but Fox. I once posted a link here to a story the Washington Post did about a GAO study released THE DAY BEFORE. One of the right wing posters here posted to say that the real issue wasn’t the study findings, oh no, it was why the Washington Post was reporting this “in 2007”?!</p>
<p>The reason Fox sticks in the craw is that it makes a big production of being “fair and balanced” and is anything but. More dishonesty. Rupert Murdoch even admitting that Fox’s coverage in the run up to the war tried to “shape the debate over Iraq” “in favor of the President’s policies.” That isn’t objective journalism; it’s advocacy. How can you call yourself “balanced” when you’re “trying to shape the debate”? </p>
<p>And some of the things Fox does are just beyond the pale. When Barack Obama made the comment that “no one wants to play chicken with our troops”, Fox ran it like this: They showed a picture of Obama and over it the quote, exactly like this “…wants to play chicken with our troops.” They left out the “no one” completely, so that anyone watching with the sound down would think that was something someone said about him. </p>
<p>When the Foley story broke, they repeatedly identified him as a Democrat. They ran tape of Conyers during a story about William Jefferson getting indicted…and even when confronted, initially, they only issued a vague apology about using the “wrong tape,” but failed to tell their viewers that Conyers wasn’t indicted of anything. Only after the backlash that resulted from that did they finally come clean about Conyers.</p>
<p>This is beyond a differing viewpoint. This is despicable.</p>
<p>“This is beyond a differing viewpoint. This is despicable.”</p>
<p>So why do you watch him?</p>