Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Nice to see you agree this is a good thing. Welcome to "the team." I'm more of a fan of the league than any particular team. There are some things about your team that I like, but these are unfortunately outweighed by things that I don't like. I believe that people are able to think clearer when they don't have a pre-determined emotional investment in the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 17, 2010 Author Share Posted December 17, 2010 Relevant: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/368914/december-16-2010/jesus-is-a-liberal-democrat I always find it funny that Democrats run around yelling that Jesus was a liberal while also mocking everyone who is stupid enough to admit that they believe in Jesus in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 I always find it funny that Democrats run around yelling that Jesus was a liberal while also mocking everyone who is stupid enough to admit that they believe in Jesus in the first place. It's funny because Conservatives are quite concerned with personal wealth and keeping what's theirs, while Jesus preached about giving up all worldly possessions. If you're going to live and die by a fairy tale, why not find one that better meshes with your own philosophy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 It's funny because Conservatives are quite concerned with personal wealth and keeping what's theirs, while Jesus preached about giving up all worldly possessions. If you're going to live and die by a fairy tale, why not find one that better meshes with your own philosophy? No, he didn't. He preached charity, not poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 17, 2010 Author Share Posted December 17, 2010 (edited) It's funny because Conservatives are quite concerned with personal wealth and keeping what's theirs, while Jesus preached about giving up all worldly possessions. If you're going to live and die by a fairy tale, why not find one that better meshes with your own philosophy? Speaking of fairy tales, I really enjoy how you paint the stereotypical progressive picture that personal responsibility and accountability are synonymous with "personal wealth and keeping what's theirs." Gotta hand it to you progressives though; you do a great job of pushing that narrative amongst yourselves. If only you were as charitable with your own possessions as you are with everyone elses. But I digress... Edited December 17, 2010 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 It's funny because Conservatives are quite concerned with personal wealth and keeping what's theirs, while Jesus preached about giving up all worldly possessions. If you're going to live and die by a fairy tale, why not find one that better meshes with your own philosophy? This illustrates one of the key flaws in liberal philosophy which is the false assumption that taxing the wealthy somehow benefits the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 17, 2010 Author Share Posted December 17, 2010 Lol. I'd at least like the rich to pay more taxes than their secretaries do. Are you under the impression that a secretary earning, saying, $95K/year is paying more in federal taxes than her boss who is making, say, $650,000/year? Is that your understanding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Oh goodness you are ignorant. Here.. youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s If the boss in the scenario to which you were responding, is receiving his income as salary and taxed as such he will be paying a considerably higher tax rate. Guys like Warren Buffet make most of their money on capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate than income, and for good reason. There is a lot of risk involved in investing and it's impractical to put up walls to make it difficult to reallocate your capital. If you have a reasonable solution to make sure the handful of richest men pay a higher % on those gains without screwing over the average Joe I'd love to hear it, but the tax proposals your political heroes have been talking about do not accomplish this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 Oh goodness you are ignorant. Here.. youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s You really are an idiot. Let us know when you figure out the difference between an "amount" and a "rate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 Oh goodness you are ignorant. Here.. youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s You are one dumb ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 You really are an idiot. Let us know when you figure out the difference between an "amount" and a "rate". He won't figure out the difference, because like you have pointed out repeatedly, conner is an idiot Not only is he/she an idiot, but conner is also a Lemming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 (edited) [*]$277,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin I am sure the money will be returned in revenue created by the sales of these potatoes. [*]$246,000 for bovine tuberculosis in Michigan and Minnesota TB is a major problem in cattle and spreads like wild fire, especially in feed lots [*]$522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding in New Jersey I do believe this is an idea unless you always want your berries imported from Chile. By spurring local farms and making food available more locally you provide a safer food alternative then Wal-Mart. Also, the berry farming industry hires dozens of seasonal workers per farm. [*]$500,000 for oyster safety in Florida Safety in oysters doesn't sound safe, they're nasty. But it is important. [*]$349,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina No living life form can grow in one of these ponds and when they overflow it is a serious problem. NC produces if I remember my magazine correctly more ham then any other state, which is amazing because it is all out East. If you were to take this water and spread it over grass it would kill EVERYTHING. [*]$413,000 for peanut research in Alabama See first, and remember that peanut scare a few years ago still hurts today. [*]$247,000 for virus free wine grapes in Washington The Agritourism in this county of NC brings in nearly $2million a year. Richard Childress Winery is huge. [*]$208,000 beaver management in North Carolina Beavers are a protected animal and you cannot simply shoot them or destroy their dam...those things will put a hamper on many things. A simple damn by them about 12 years ago flooded an entire bottom land of mine. [*]$94,000 for blackbird management in Louisiana Bird are a major hassle in farming, but I cannot speculate on the exact reason here. [*]$165,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont I am sure that this is a drop in the hat to the amount of money that is generated my the syrup that Vermont produces. With the rap stars and their "Syzurp" maybe they want to work on tapping a new markert? [*]$235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada This is huge. So many plants can kill animals so quickly. If any animal gets ahold of mistle toe they will die. Many plants are like that. [*]$300,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii Not sureon this one, but $300k is not much when revenue can be created. Not everything is as simple as it looks. It is a program any one should support. Farming is an industry that does not fail. When it does fail it is because the Gov has their hands too firm on it (bumper crops, enviromental bs). This is a business investment. I am sure the money that the Gov just spent out was a fraction of what those industries have paid in taxes. I am tired of banks getting loans, computer companies getting incentives, and other businesses getting insane kick backs for their mismanagement and failures. Farming is the oldest profession in the books. No farms, no food. Edited December 18, 2010 by jboyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 [*]$277,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin I am sure the money will be returned in revenue created by the sales of these potatoes. [*]$246,000 for bovine tuberculosis in Michigan and Minnesota TB is a major problem in cattle and spreads like wild fire, especially in feed lots [*]$522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding in New Jersey I do believe this is an idea unless you always want your berries imported from Chile. By spurring local farms and making food available more locally you provide a safer food alternative then Wal-Mart. Also, the berry farming industry hires dozens of seasonal workers per farm. [*]$500,000 for oyster safety in Florida Safety in oysters doesn't sound safe, they're nasty. But it is important. [*]$349,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina No living life form can grow in one of these ponds and when they overflow it is a serious problem. NC produces if I remember my magazine correctly more ham then any other state, which is amazing because it is all out East. If you were to take this water and spread it over grass it would kill EVERYTHING. [*]$413,000 for peanut research in Alabama See first, and remember that peanut scare a few years ago still hurts today. [*]$247,000 for virus free wine grapes in Washington The Agritourism in this county of NC brings in nearly $2million a year. Richard Childress Winery is huge. [*]$208,000 beaver management in North Carolina Beavers are a protected animal and you cannot simply shoot them or destroy their dam...those things will put a hamper on many things. A simple damn by them about 12 years ago flooded an entire bottom land of mine. [*]$94,000 for blackbird management in Louisiana Bird are a major hassle in farming, but I cannot speculate on the exact reason here. [*]$165,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont I am sure that this is a drop in the hat to the amount of money that is generated my the syrup that Vermont produces. With the rap stars and their "Syzurp" maybe they want to work on tapping a new markert? [*]$235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada This is huge. So many plants can kill animals so quickly. If any animal gets ahold of mistle toe they will die. Many plants are like that. [*]$300,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii Not sureon this one, but $300k is not much when revenue can be created. Not everything is as simple as it looks. It is a program any one should support. Farming is an industry that does not fail. When it does fail it is because the Gov has their hands too firm on it (bumper crops, enviromental bs). This is a business investment. I am sure the money that the Gov just spent out was a fraction of what those industries have paid in taxes. I am tired of banks getting loans, computer companies getting incentives, and other businesses getting insane kick backs for their mismanagement and failures. Farming is the oldest profession in the books. No farms, no food. You cannot speculate on the exact reasons for one of them...but you're perfectly willing to for the others. And while it's not as simple as it looks...you reduce each and every one to a simplistic statement based on arrant speculation. Normally, with this level of blather, I'd simply say "you're an idiot". But you're new here, so I'll try to be encouraging and polite and merely suggest that you apply either a bit more critical thought to your own speculation, or actually hunt down the text of the bill and discover the ACTUAL rationale behind the line items so you don't have to speculate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 You cannot speculate on the exact reasons for one of them...but you're perfectly willing to for the others. And while it's not as simple as it looks...you reduce each and every one to a simplistic statement based on arrant speculation. Normally, with this level of blather, I'd simply say "you're an idiot". But you're new here, so I'll try to be encouraging and polite and merely suggest that you apply either a bit more critical thought to your own speculation, or actually hunt down the text of the bill and discover the ACTUAL rationale behind the line items so you don't have to speculate. I will admit that I did not go in to the Bill to look at it but to just declare that this money seems like a lost cause. I felt it was an attack of farming and agriculture and had to promote the idea that this money is a drop in the bucket to the revenue created by farms. I can say without needing any resarch that the TB research in Michigan is highly important. It sets in fast and is hard to control; when 1,000 head are stuffed in to a feed lot and the disease is found it can take down every cow there and cause major loses to the business. The hog waste water is obvious, when hurricans hit the coastline here they often overflow and indanger all life forms that rely on the water systems in infects. The rest I was simply taking LABillz's word for that it was a correct summary of each item. If anyone thinks that Vermont does not generate over $165k of revenue to the fed, or Alabama's peanut farms do not provide $413 then they need to think again. If this is simply the Gov giving kickbacks to farms and industry who create millions more in revenue then what was just spent I am OK with that. Same with the berries in Jersey, if you can get a successful berry farm there and tap in to the rich folk of NYC you will make millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 No, he didn't. He preached charity, not poverty. Giving up all worldly possessions, IIRC. I doubt Jesus would be in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy or anyone else if it meant sacrificing aid to the poor. Not that the words of some dude who may or may not have lived 2,000 years ago should carry a whole lot of weight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 I will admit that I did not go in to the Bill to look at it but to just declare that this money seems like a lost cause. I felt it was an attack of farming and agriculture and had to promote the idea that this money is a drop in the bucket to the revenue created by farms. I can say without needing any resarch that the TB research in Michigan is highly important. It sets in fast and is hard to control; when 1,000 head are stuffed in to a feed lot and the disease is found it can take down every cow there and cause major loses to the business. The hog waste water is obvious, when hurricans hit the coastline here they often overflow and indanger all life forms that rely on the water systems in infects. The rest I was simply taking LABillz's word for that it was a correct summary of each item. If anyone thinks that Vermont does not generate over $165k of revenue to the fed, or Alabama's peanut farms do not provide $413 then they need to think again. If this is simply the Gov giving kickbacks to farms and industry who create millions more in revenue then what was just spent I am OK with that. Same with the berries in Jersey, if you can get a successful berry farm there and tap in to the rich folk of NYC you will make millions. And if you'd read, you'd see that I already mentioned that TB and pig waste funding weren't a bad idea, for much the same reasons. But the rest, again...just idle uninformed speculation on your part, compounded by a backwards reward analysis: just because the government makes money off a thing, does not justify an expenditure on that thing. Just because, for example, VT maple syrup generates more than $165k to the federal government, does NOT make it cost-effective to reinvest any of that revenue back into the maple syrup industry - is the $165k going to maintain the government's revenue, or increase it proportionally? You're assuming a ROI based on past revenue, not future. It's economically completely backwards - and a completely facile argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 Giving up all worldly possessions, IIRC. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and render unto God what is God's. Jesus never preached against wealth nearly as much as he preached against greed in God's name. He didn't throw the money changers out of the temple because they were rich, he threw them out because they were getting rich off worship. I doubt Jesus would be in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy or anyone else if it meant sacrificing aid to the poor. Like I said...he preached charity. Although I highly doubt he'd be for government programs to aid the poor; consistently his teachings were about the rich aiding the poor directly. Not that the words of some dude who may or may not have lived 2,000 years ago should carry a whole lot of weight... If I may be so bold as to quote Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, Aeschylus, Aesop, Hippocrates, Ptolemy, Archimedes, and Pythagoras: you're a !@#$ing idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 If I may be so bold as to quote Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, Aeschylus, Aesop, Hippocrates, Ptolemy, Archimedes, and Pythagoras: you're a !@#$ing idiot. I almost spit hangover coffee all over my 28" monitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts