Quote:
I'm sure a guy who died in 65 AD is relevant to American politics 2000 years later.
I'm sure a guy who died in 65 AD is relevant to American politics 2000 years later.
Republican Debate?
- Thread starter E.M. Silkies
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
I'm sure a guy who died in 65 AD is relevant to American politics 2000 years later.
He IS relevant, maybe not to politics per se, but as a way of life. The world would be a MUCH better place if everyone lived by His word, myself included. I am not perfect, but I do believe in His teachings, and try to live my life by them!
I'm sure a guy who died in 65 AD is relevant to American politics 2000 years later.
He IS relevant, maybe not to politics per se, but as a way of life. The world would be a MUCH better place if everyone lived by His word, myself included. I am not perfect, but I do believe in His teachings, and try to live my life by them!
Quote:
I'm sure a guy who died in 65 AD is relevant to American politics 2000 years later.
He IS relevant, maybe not to politics per se, but as a way of life. The world would be a MUCH better place if everyone lived by His word, myself included. I am not perfect, but I do believe in His teachings, and try to live my life by them!
I'm sure a guy who died in 65 AD is relevant to American politics 2000 years later.
He IS relevant, maybe not to politics per se, but as a way of life. The world would be a MUCH better place if everyone lived by His word, myself included. I am not perfect, but I do believe in His teachings, and try to live my life by them!
Quote:
I'm sure a guy who died in 65 AD is relevant to American politics 2000 years later.
Naw, of course not. Of course those old dead guys known as our Founding Fathers used no ideas from even older dead guys to craft the idea that was to become this nation.
I'm sure a guy who died in 65 AD is relevant to American politics 2000 years later.
Naw, of course not. Of course those old dead guys known as our Founding Fathers used no ideas from even older dead guys to craft the idea that was to become this nation.
Last edited:
You know what this all boils down too, regardless of what you vote or what you believe. They all lie to some degree and tell us what we want to hear. I hate it all.
Boy you miss out on a lot on these threads if you do other things, let alone type long posts. This thread has really moved on.
For most if not all of us, our perception is reality, whether the facts agree with them or not. That's why the spin masters don't even have to lie to us, they just have to say things in a way that implies something other than the truth. If they can get you emotionall involved too, they are much more successful. A few examples:
"We have to stop all Foreign Aid" and implying we are just giving money away in the way they say this. True, we do a bit of humanitarian aid, such as tsunami relief or earthquake relief, but the vast majority of Foreign Aid is used to buy something. Even the humanitarian aid buys good will. But what it is targeted to buy might be markets for American goods, access by American companies to raw materials, military assistance such as the right for our war planes to fly over their territory, political support, or something else. Whether or not we are getting our money's worth for the individual pieces of Foreigh Aid is a valid topic and should be discussed. It really should be. But if someone starts out with the conviction that all Foreigh Aid is just giving money away, then how can you honestly evaluate that.
Also from another thread "We have to stop giving subsidies to oil companies" Instead of a blanket statement, I'd need to know which subsidies (which in my experience means tax or royalty relief. We're not giving them cash as implied, but reducing their taxes. It amounts to the same thing but the way it is perceived is important.) The incentives I am familair with involve oil and gas exploration and development. I've worked in the industry. How taxes and royalties are handled can have a big influence on whether or not an exploratory well is drilled on a certain prospect and, if hydrocarbons are found, whether or not they are developed. It's not a simple case of drill, baby, drill. Some prospects are so good that they are going to be drilled and produced whether or not there are any incentives. On those, the incentives is a loss to our government. But are those offset by the prospects that are drilled and developed because of the incentives? Don't forget, with the multinational oil companies, the USA prospects are competing for exploration and development money for prospects from all around the world. If a USA prospect does not make the cut, it usually means that money will be spent on a prospect in Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, or somewhere else in the world, so the other country gets taxes and royalties, their citizens get the jobs associated with it, and their oil dependence decreases instead of that happening in the USA. A proper evaluation would look at how much we lose by giving tax relief on prospects that are going to be drilled and developed anyway versus the additional American jobs, taxes, and energy independence we gain on the prospects that would not have been drilled without the incentive.
To me, it is not a straightforward money assessment either. Value judgment gets involved. I tend to prefer leaving our marginal oil and gas in the ground for my grandchildren's future benefit versus drill, baby, drill. It is a limited resource. The more we use the more valuable the remaining will be. I'd rather use other people's oil first. And what value do you put in reducing our energy dependence a fraction? Others will use different values.
I worked with numbers all my career so I can strongly agree that figures don't lie but liars figure. To make the evaluations, you have to make assumptions. Whoever is doing the calculations strongly affect the outcome based on the basic assumptions they use. For example, there is no way the government or us as private citizens will ever know which prospects were drilled or not drilled because of government incentives. Those decisions are confidential business practices and decisions within the oil companies. To make that process public would give their competitors an unfair competitive advantage. So you have to assume something. I can make the results show what I want by which assumptions I assume. And it is not always straight numbers. Value judgments come into play there too. For example, a prospect in Nigeria may have a better rate of return, but the political instability in Nigeria may make a prospect in the USA more attractive. You set up the formulas your way and I'll set them up mine. We'll disagree over the results because of the assumptions we use.
I'd really love to see a cost-benefit analysis on all the different government spending. Everything from Regulations to Foreign Aid. See which ones are helping our country and which ones are not helping and need to be discontinued or not implemented to start with. It is not a simple calculation. To me the idea of doing a cost-benefit analysis is pretty basic, but they are not usually simple to set up. And we will honestly get different opinions based on who is setting up the equations, what assumptions they make, and what value they put on the different personal value items. That's where the ballot box comes in. Just like the winner gets to write history, the winner gets to set the values and make the assumptions.
You may notice I switched from "subsidies" to "incentives". That is spin. Both words are technically correct, but which one you use gives a different feeling and will affect how you perceive the issue. You might try substituting technically correct but different words in something a candidate says to see if that has an effect on how you perceive the message. I realize that most of us are set in our ways and won't change, but I think most if us on here are speaking to the few that have an open mind and are still trying to determine how thay feel on these issues, so my suggestion is for them.
I guess another example of how we are manipuilated. When Lush Rimbough mispronounces Jesse Jackson's name, he is manipulating you. If he can degrade and ridicule Jesse Jackson, then Jesse's message is not important. Not only does his supporters think that is funny, he hits the emotions of the Jackson supporters. They get mad and don't think straight. They are so emotionally involved they just lose it. Whether you thought my misspelling Rush's name was funny or if it infuriated you probably has a lot to do with how you feel about Rush. It is a common tactic. Whether she deserves it or not, think of Sarah.
One more thing, from a few posts back. Does anyone else think that Rick Perry has changed his hair style so he looks more like Ronald Reagan? If so, that would be another type of spin.
For most if not all of us, our perception is reality, whether the facts agree with them or not. That's why the spin masters don't even have to lie to us, they just have to say things in a way that implies something other than the truth. If they can get you emotionall involved too, they are much more successful. A few examples:
"We have to stop all Foreign Aid" and implying we are just giving money away in the way they say this. True, we do a bit of humanitarian aid, such as tsunami relief or earthquake relief, but the vast majority of Foreign Aid is used to buy something. Even the humanitarian aid buys good will. But what it is targeted to buy might be markets for American goods, access by American companies to raw materials, military assistance such as the right for our war planes to fly over their territory, political support, or something else. Whether or not we are getting our money's worth for the individual pieces of Foreigh Aid is a valid topic and should be discussed. It really should be. But if someone starts out with the conviction that all Foreigh Aid is just giving money away, then how can you honestly evaluate that.
Also from another thread "We have to stop giving subsidies to oil companies" Instead of a blanket statement, I'd need to know which subsidies (which in my experience means tax or royalty relief. We're not giving them cash as implied, but reducing their taxes. It amounts to the same thing but the way it is perceived is important.) The incentives I am familair with involve oil and gas exploration and development. I've worked in the industry. How taxes and royalties are handled can have a big influence on whether or not an exploratory well is drilled on a certain prospect and, if hydrocarbons are found, whether or not they are developed. It's not a simple case of drill, baby, drill. Some prospects are so good that they are going to be drilled and produced whether or not there are any incentives. On those, the incentives is a loss to our government. But are those offset by the prospects that are drilled and developed because of the incentives? Don't forget, with the multinational oil companies, the USA prospects are competing for exploration and development money for prospects from all around the world. If a USA prospect does not make the cut, it usually means that money will be spent on a prospect in Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, or somewhere else in the world, so the other country gets taxes and royalties, their citizens get the jobs associated with it, and their oil dependence decreases instead of that happening in the USA. A proper evaluation would look at how much we lose by giving tax relief on prospects that are going to be drilled and developed anyway versus the additional American jobs, taxes, and energy independence we gain on the prospects that would not have been drilled without the incentive.
To me, it is not a straightforward money assessment either. Value judgment gets involved. I tend to prefer leaving our marginal oil and gas in the ground for my grandchildren's future benefit versus drill, baby, drill. It is a limited resource. The more we use the more valuable the remaining will be. I'd rather use other people's oil first. And what value do you put in reducing our energy dependence a fraction? Others will use different values.
I worked with numbers all my career so I can strongly agree that figures don't lie but liars figure. To make the evaluations, you have to make assumptions. Whoever is doing the calculations strongly affect the outcome based on the basic assumptions they use. For example, there is no way the government or us as private citizens will ever know which prospects were drilled or not drilled because of government incentives. Those decisions are confidential business practices and decisions within the oil companies. To make that process public would give their competitors an unfair competitive advantage. So you have to assume something. I can make the results show what I want by which assumptions I assume. And it is not always straight numbers. Value judgments come into play there too. For example, a prospect in Nigeria may have a better rate of return, but the political instability in Nigeria may make a prospect in the USA more attractive. You set up the formulas your way and I'll set them up mine. We'll disagree over the results because of the assumptions we use.
I'd really love to see a cost-benefit analysis on all the different government spending. Everything from Regulations to Foreign Aid. See which ones are helping our country and which ones are not helping and need to be discontinued or not implemented to start with. It is not a simple calculation. To me the idea of doing a cost-benefit analysis is pretty basic, but they are not usually simple to set up. And we will honestly get different opinions based on who is setting up the equations, what assumptions they make, and what value they put on the different personal value items. That's where the ballot box comes in. Just like the winner gets to write history, the winner gets to set the values and make the assumptions.
You may notice I switched from "subsidies" to "incentives". That is spin. Both words are technically correct, but which one you use gives a different feeling and will affect how you perceive the issue. You might try substituting technically correct but different words in something a candidate says to see if that has an effect on how you perceive the message. I realize that most of us are set in our ways and won't change, but I think most if us on here are speaking to the few that have an open mind and are still trying to determine how thay feel on these issues, so my suggestion is for them.
I guess another example of how we are manipuilated. When Lush Rimbough mispronounces Jesse Jackson's name, he is manipulating you. If he can degrade and ridicule Jesse Jackson, then Jesse's message is not important. Not only does his supporters think that is funny, he hits the emotions of the Jackson supporters. They get mad and don't think straight. They are so emotionally involved they just lose it. Whether you thought my misspelling Rush's name was funny or if it infuriated you probably has a lot to do with how you feel about Rush. It is a common tactic. Whether she deserves it or not, think of Sarah.
One more thing, from a few posts back. Does anyone else think that Rick Perry has changed his hair style so he looks more like Ronald Reagan? If so, that would be another type of spin.
I believe that the Left fear the Tea Party so much that they try to neutralize the TP as they did Sarah Palin. Neutralize meaning: "To make ineffective; paralyze, destroy, or counteract the effectiveness, force, disposition, etc. of." IMHO, it worked with Sarah Palin. She is considered stupid, flaky, uneducated, etc. by MSM. Others have made silly, incorrect remarks. A book could be written on Bidenisms. Biden wanted a wheelchair-bound man to stand up, Obama thought there are 58 states, Pelosi, Kerry, etc. Biden constantly has a foot 'n mouth disease but gets a pass. He even used the F bomb in one.
I'm not that interested in all the philosophical debate on this thread. Common sense, fairness for all, honesty, and the Constitution go a long way with me.
I'm not that interested in all the philosophical debate on this thread. Common sense, fairness for all, honesty, and the Constitution go a long way with me.
Quote:
I agree that "hard work" is not a determinant of individual economic growth. I've known many people that work real hard and don't have any real personal economic growth. For some, it is a personal lifestyle decision. Think of the Homesteaders. That is real hard work but you don't experience a lot of personal economic growth. You get your rewards other ways. And some people work real hard but on things that don't lead to personal economic growth. I do agree that hard work is normally a component of personal economic growth, but it is not a sole determinant. You have to work on things that lead to the goal.
I don't agree with the other statement. In my experience as you move up the pay scale, the work you do changes. You may do less physical work, but the quality and value of the work increases. For example, I had to explain to several of my work crew foremen that their job was not to pick up a wrench and tighten a nut. I only used people as work crew foremen that had come up through the ranks. They had a good understanding of what was involved but their job was to see that the work crew was using the right tool to tighten the nut properly and teach them how to do that right if they did not know, to make sure they used the right nut in the right place, and to make sure the work crew had enough nuts to tighten and the right wrenches available. Since most of these jobs were in remote locations, food, housing and transportation were also within their area of responsibility. Less physical work but more stress and more responsibility. And they normally did their paperwork after the crew knocked off for the day, so their hours did not decrease. My workload and hours did not decrease as I moved up the pay scale, but the type of work I did certainly changed.
I know that people can come up with examples counter to this, but I do not accept the statement as given as a correct blanket statement.
I agree that "hard work" is not a determinant of individual economic growth. I've known many people that work real hard and don't have any real personal economic growth. For some, it is a personal lifestyle decision. Think of the Homesteaders. That is real hard work but you don't experience a lot of personal economic growth. You get your rewards other ways. And some people work real hard but on things that don't lead to personal economic growth. I do agree that hard work is normally a component of personal economic growth, but it is not a sole determinant. You have to work on things that lead to the goal.
I don't agree with the other statement. In my experience as you move up the pay scale, the work you do changes. You may do less physical work, but the quality and value of the work increases. For example, I had to explain to several of my work crew foremen that their job was not to pick up a wrench and tighten a nut. I only used people as work crew foremen that had come up through the ranks. They had a good understanding of what was involved but their job was to see that the work crew was using the right tool to tighten the nut properly and teach them how to do that right if they did not know, to make sure they used the right nut in the right place, and to make sure the work crew had enough nuts to tighten and the right wrenches available. Since most of these jobs were in remote locations, food, housing and transportation were also within their area of responsibility. Less physical work but more stress and more responsibility. And they normally did their paperwork after the crew knocked off for the day, so their hours did not decrease. My workload and hours did not decrease as I moved up the pay scale, but the type of work I did certainly changed.
I know that people can come up with examples counter to this, but I do not accept the statement as given as a correct blanket statement.
Quote:
Oh my!
I do hate the media! Its one of the main reasons we don't have TV
Oh my!
I do hate the media! Its one of the main reasons we don't have TV
- Status
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
Coccidia outbreak in 3-4 week old chicks- Started by BawkenQuackers
- Replies: 1
-
-
Splash Copper Marans with Copper Hackle Feathers- Started by Snugglesandwigglespetcare
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
-
Prettiest chicken breeds and plumage color- Started by Beau plus penny
- Replies: 46
-
Question of the Day - Thursday, August 21st, 2025- Started by casportpony
- Replies: 46
-
-
