who and why

Help Support Steer Planet:

GONEWEST

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
921
Location
GEORGIA
JbarL said:
GONEWEST said:
Jbarl I wasn't quoting anyone. But that was what you insinuated anyone was who disagreed with your opinions. and thanks for the dissertation that was completely off the topic of the security of the US and Israel.
oh i forgot...i got a bit light headed way up there on my soapbox......the security of the us and israel is in gods hands....period...no one is going to hasten or prolong the proficies of the bible and/or  the distrubution date of goods promised.........jbarl




The other day during the flooding a man crawled up on top of his home to flee the flood waters. He prayed to God for his rescue. Not long after a boat came by to pick him up. When offered a ride to safety the man said "that's ok, go get someone else, God is going to take care of me." The waters continued to rise forcing the man into a nearby tree. Soon after moving to the tree a helicopter came to pick the man up. He waved them off shouting "It's ok, God is going to take care of me." After another day and night in the tree, the man shouted "God, I had total faith you were going to rescue me, why haven't you heard my prayers?" There was a booming voice that replied " I sent you a boat and a helicopter, what do you want me to do?"

Was that you JbarL?

Obviously the world is in God's hands. He doesn't NEED  the US to protect Israel. He could have 10,000 angels stand at the border at Gaza and catch every Hamas fired rocket that flies toward His people. But evidently, that isn't how he choses to do it. Did it ever occur to you that God uses the military strength of the US to protect Israel? And as for us, my Bible is very clear that those who befriend His chosen people will be favored.

I'm almost finished with you, but since you seem to be such the bible scholar, I'd like for you to tell me how your views on abortion and gay marriage match up with your backing of Obama.
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
GONEWEST said:
fair market is subject to interpretation of what's fair.




Knabe, everything is subject to interpretation, that's why we are having this discussion. Everyone of us sees things through his own set of situations, experiences  and values.

If you believe it's fair to compete with state subsidized products imported to this country, or currency manipulated values, that's fine.

i don't believe this, although this is negotiable, and we seem to be always doing it, and when it's ours that is subsidized, ie cotton, sugar etc. and we lose on WTO judgements which in my book isn't right as we give up our sovereignty to a world body.

But it's not true in my geographic location or experience. If you believe it's fair to place tariffs on raw materials needed for our manufacturing but not on competing finished goods, that's ok.

tariffs work when negotiations fail.  the fail when there is no innovation or there is subsidized wages etc.

But it's not here. If you believe the correct thing to do is allow the executives from the oil companies  to make an obscene amount money at the expense of working Americans who can't afford new automobiles, that's fine.

shareholders can vote differently, though i don't own oil shares, most 401's etc do, and they are making people money.  if you split 4 oil companies and divided those at the top their salary, they wouldn't be so obscene.  i haven't seen a cost comparison on this, but i don't think it would be too out of line.

But it's not by my values. If you want to vote for Alfred E. Newman that's fine by me.

not sure how i got mixed up with alfred.

But not in three of your lifetimes will there be enough "groundswell" support to elect him. Maybe in CA, there was "groundswell" support for gay marriage, but that's not how it happened. It has happened due to the decisions of a VERY few liberal judges, who are appointed, not elected.

3 of the 4 "liberal" judges were appointed by republicans, just like the supreme court today with kennedy souter etc.  the vast majority of the country is moving towards gay marriage.  i don't support it as to me it's the ultimate of discrimination and also adoption doesn't allow input from the children to discriminate about their parents.

The vast majority of the country does not support gay marriage. The "few" positions that the candidates differ in are dang important ones.

the vast majority of the country is moving towards gay marriage.  i don't support it as to me it's the ultimate of discrimination as there is no diversity in the marriage and also adoption doesn't allow input from the children to discriminate about their parents.


But the most important issue is the type of judges that the next President will appoint. If that's not an important issue to you, I'm ok with that. But it is to me.

to me, this is the most important issue.

Perhaps innovation is taking place in CA at the rate that they just can't pay people enough in their jobs. But here, Delta just laid off 3,000 more employees. It is estimated it will take 10,000 jobs of the type currently available to have the same  impact those Delta jobs had on the local economy.

what if they did something different like upgrade rail infrastructure with private ownership similar to burlington northern who ran his ship for less than the govt and made a profit that he had to be busted.

Maybe in CA fat people are a huge strain on the health care system. But here I live in a county of about 120,000 people. We have two large hospitals that serve a much larger geographical, mostly rural area. The cost of indigent care for illegal aliens and their new born American citizens  for our county hospital in 2007 was 339 million dollars. This shortfall is paid by higher prices for goods and services charged to those who are insured as well as higher property taxes for all county land owners. Here, when the fat people have their by pass surgery, their insurance companies and employers pay for it as well as for others who are breaking the law by being in this country. Certainly, all of the ills that beset us will pass and a new set will occur. But when?

my point on this was not the aggregate cost, but the cost per individual, which i admit is a poor comparison, but still relevant because both users could change and lower the cost for everyone.

The disproportionate cost of transportation of goods will not change in our lifetime. The credit crisis will not change in our lifetime. Even to begin drilling now will not change anything in the next ten years.

people said the same thing in the late 70's.  it got cheap again.

It's fine with me that you are prosperous enough that none of that matters, as a matter of fact, I am glad you are.  Fortunately I am prosperous enough that I can get by. But here, I am in the minority. There were those who prospered during the great depression. That doesn't mean it's ok with me from an ethical standpoint to go through another one just because some can prosper.


i don't consider myself prosperous.  i can only afford 5 cows and that's pushing it.  i have a few strategies to not incur expenses like most out here, and i would consider myself below average out here, and with my wife working about 15 hours/week, it's pretty rough.  i did just refinance my house to save 500/mo and my new job pays about 10% less, couple with no contribution to 401, that's another 10%, but looking forward, the company seems to have a decent plan and if it goes public, i can make some of that up.

The point is we all see things through our own filter. Doesn't make it right or wrong for anyone else. But the apathy of the American public will have to change before government sets new policies that enable us all to prosper and then gets out of our way.

prosperity is not a right, it is earned.  i agree the public is apathetic and will change, as proved in the depression, wwii etc.  this is the only place to be in a climate like this.

what are specific impediments to job creation that don't involve the government?  what are one's that do involve the government?

job creation is the key, not job protection.  it should be obvious that the best job protection is government job protection and it makes sense to me to not look there for innovation and job creation other than to remove unnecessary impediments.

on a different note, there are very few people who are linebreeding their cattle, introgressing available markers and or epd's and putting this in a package other than waygu or waygu looking angus looking cattle that will perform on grass and reach a slaughter weight less than 18 months.  that's my business plan, but i don't see hardly anyone doing it.  my business plan, which is a joke since i only have 5 cows, is to create an animal for an option for commercial cattlemen in a 2 or 3 way cross to sell them hybrid vigor, homozygosity, etc. in a phenotype package that is probably not available today.  i guess i don't need to make a profit, which is even more stupid, but i am doing this out of curiosity and because everyone says it can't be done.  that's what america is about, testing out ideas.  what's your ideas?  here's another idea of mine, mufflers for generators at cattle shows so we don't all go deaf.  anyone make that?

 

Show Dad

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
5,127
Location
1 AU from a G2 yellow dwarf star
Dusty said:
SD said:
Dusty said:
SD said:
Not to disagree with GW but we have never had a fair market system but a free market system. Free of government but that has seen increasingly government interference.

Just take agriculture, how many of us take a government payment?

Government proper role in the market is to provide security. Including security of access for all with success or failure being left up to the individual. No guarantees. I know sounds harsh but that's what works best.

Government that "helps" to eliminate the pain just ends up creating more pain. Then creates a new program to "help" with the new pain. And so on and so on.

What we need is less government and more individual responsibility. Which will give us better community.

Now which candidate is going to do that?

Ron Paul would have done that.  But, he wasn't going to give any away anything to any "special" groups so he wasn't very popular.

Ron Paul is an isolationist. It was that line of thinking that lead up to the Depression. We are a world engaged power and to retreat from that would only hurt the country not help. No matter how great it sounds.

I have a hard time believing that Ron Paul's policies would be anything other than a boon to America's economy.  Lower taxes, less regulation, SMALLER GOVERNMENT.

I am anxious to hear your theory on what caused the great depression.   Especially the part on how it was somehow caused by american isolationism.
Thought my quip on RP would get a response ;). I truly like most of his positions but his treatment of our position in the world was way off. His lower taxes, less government intrusion and smaller government was all in a context of protectionism (which is economic isolationism). Yes it is easier to make laws that keep out foreign competition than to lead a country to compete with the world economically. Which will soon enough lead to tariffs on foreign goods, which then leads to retaliation by our once trading partners. Combine that with most of what knabe said and you get a world depression. (Not a big fan of Wikipedia).

Change the context of RP's message and you have RR! But he sounds more like Pat Buchanan.
 

JbarL

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
1,677
Location
30deg 17' 11.73 N 81deg 35'59.94&q
GONEWEST said:
JbarL said:
GONEWEST said:
Jbarl I wasn't quoting anyone. But that was what you insinuated anyone was who disagreed with your opinions. and thanks for the dissertation that was completely off the topic of the security of the US and Israel.
oh i forgot...i got a bit light headed way up there on my soapbox......the security of the us and israel is in gods hands....period...no one is going to hasten or prolong the proficies of the bible and/or  the distrubution date of goods promised.........jbarl
my stance on abortion and gay marriage is the same as it has always been.....as an individual  i am pro life and anti gay marraiage  ....as president .....i would be pro chjoice and  pro gay marriage....as i have stated before....you cant legisilate moral ethics....its none of the presidents business, how folks live there lives..........or is it mine....kinda the same as me tryin' to tell my neighbor what to do and how to live his life.....and actually expecting him to listen to me....jbarl




The other day during the flooding a man crawled up on top of his home to flee the flood waters. He prayed to God for his rescue. Not long after a boat came by to pick him up. When offered a ride to safety the man said "that's ok, go get someone else, God is going to take care of me." The waters continued to rise forcing the man into a nearby tree. Soon after moving to the tree a helicopter came to pick the man up. He waved them off shouting "It's ok, God is going to take care of me." After another day and night in the tree, the man shouted "God, I had total faith you were going to rescue me, why haven't you heard my prayers?" There was a booming voice that replied " I sent you a boat and a helicopter, what do you want me to do?"

Was that you JbarL?

Obviously the world is in God's hands. He doesn't NEED  the US to protect Israel. He could have 10,000 angels stand at the border at Gaza and catch every Hamas fired rocket that flies toward His people. But evidently, that isn't how he choses to do it. Did it ever occur to you that God uses the military strength of the US to protect Israel? And as for us, my Bible is very clear that those who befriend His chosen people will be favored.

I'm almost finished with you, but since you seem to be such the bible scholar, I'd like for you to tell me how your views on abortion and gay marriage match up with your backing of Obama.
 

GONEWEST

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
921
Location
GEORGIA
KNABE:

As always I appreciate your views. And can certainly live with all of them. But I see two that we are way off on.

Prosperity is for sure a reward not a right. However, the government has no right to enact policies which either take away prosperity already earned or force a climate in which prosperity is more difficult to reach. I'll give you two examples. Prior to the last election, President Bush enacted tariffs on imported steel. But enacted no such tariffs on steel parts. Why did he do this? The steel mills who over the years had placed their profits in their pockets instead of reinvesting it into newer more efficient infrastructure, were in a world of hurt. HUGE lay offs were imminent in OH and in PA. Bush needed those electoral votes. So he enacted the tariffs which saved the steel mills and larger steel companies and allowed them to double and triple their prices overnight without foreign competition. In a true free market, they would have been left to make it on their own. But with no similar tariffs on items made from steel, companies who made steel parts, or items made from steel could no longer compete in price with those imported products  due to the huge increases in raw material costs. I lost my good paying white collar job along with 215  blue collar workers of which none have a job now that pays more than 60% of what their previous salary was. The ONLY reason this took place was government POLITICAL based policy. None of these guys who had a wife a couple of kids, a small house and a couple of used cars were living high on the hog then. But they contribute mightily to this credit crisis because they can no longer afford to pay for those extravagances. The other political policy that limits an individuals right to prosper is that our government refuses to control our borders due to the fact that cheap labor is essential to huge corporate profits of which much is given to politicians to keep them in office. These people do not really take up jobs that Americans could be used to employ Americans, instead they create a larger tax burden, larger health care burden, larger infrastructure burden, higher crime rates. All I want is government policy to right the wrongs already done and create an environment where prosperity is easier for everyone to reach.

Like I said, my views are based on my personal experiences, they won't be right for everyone. And it doesn't preclude me from seeing things from another's perspective.

The other thing we are going to disagree on is these feed efficiency markers. That's the Maine associations "Bridge to no where."  ;)
 

GONEWEST

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
921
Location
GEORGIA
my stance on abortion and gay marriage is the same as it has always been.....as an individual  i am pro life and anti gay marraiage  ....as president .....i would be pro chjoice and  pro gay marriage....as i have stated before....you cant legisilate moral ethics....its none of the presidents business, how folks live there lives..........or is it mine....kinda the same as me tryin' to tell my neighbor what to do and how to live his life.....and actually expecting him to listen to me....jbar

Then JbarL, according to the Bible which you continue to say you follow and believe, you wouldn't make a very good President. When the leader, of any group, sets no standards, there will be no standards. Read your Bible and see what happened to all the Israelite societies in which the leaders became either secular or hands off and didn't set standards for their country. It didn't matter if all of the nation followed, what mattered was that the leader set a standard.
 

JbarL

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
1,677
Location
30deg 17' 11.73 N 81deg 35'59.94&q
GONEWEST said:
my stance on abortion and gay marriage is the same as it has always been.....as an individual  i am pro life and anti gay marraiage  ....as president .....i would be pro chjoice and  pro gay marriage....as i have stated before....you cant legisilate moral ethics....its none of the presidents business, how folks live there lives..........or is it mine....kinda the same as me tryin' to tell my neighbor what to do and how to live his life.....and actually expecting him to listen to me....jbar

Then JbarL, according to the Bible which you continue to say you follow and believe, you wouldn't make a very good President.
When the leader, of any group, sets no standards, there will be no standards. Read your Bible and see what happened to all the Israelite societies in which the leaders became either secular or hands off and didn't set standards for their country. It didn't matter if all of the nation followed, what mattered was that the leader set a standard.
thats the reason i didnt run for president. ... ;) ....plus i'm far to right wing with my relegious thinking an all , and i dont no near  enough about middle eastern history or diplomacy.......plus...other countries would probaly take advantage of me.....and i might screw it up for the whole world....jbarl
 

Jenny

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
223
Location
south dakota
I am sick to death of hearing people say " I am pro life myself but I could never impose my beliefs on someone else". 
Stand up and have a backbone.  Stand up and proudly say you are prolife and why. 

We have a prolife governor in our sparsely populated state of South Dakota.  Four years ago, we were the first state in the nation to try and pass a bill to outlaw ALL abortions....that would be all-inclusinve...no abortions even for rape or incest pregnancies.  Our governor signed this bill, a necessary step to putting it on the ballot.  He confessed that he was not very comfortable with how it was worded but being a prolife man to his very roots, he could not refuse to sign it even in its given form.  This man is prolife, this man will impose his beliefs on others as the leader of our state because that is the job he was elected to do.  He did not get this job because he "believed one way but would not back that belief up". 

He also believes that ALL babies are worthy of being given life; even those that were conceived through unfortunate circumstances.  Unfortunately, this bill was narrowly defeated but is back on the ballot for this coming election with the all-inclusive abortion ban out of it; this bill will allow abortions in circumstances of rape and incest; the way this bill is written, it is expected to win and South Dakota will be the first state in the union to ban abortions except in certain circumstances. 

This governor is one of the most popular leaders our state has been fortunate to have; our family personally sent him a letter of thanks because we feel it took great courage and conviction to take the stand that he did, knowing the publicity it would bring and also, if the bill won, would bring lawsuits for years to try and override the vote.  But as he said "I cannot be against bringing this bill to a vote when abortion is something that I feel is morally wrong".
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
GONEWEST said:
KNABE:

As always I appreciate your views. And can certainly live with all of them. But I see two that we are way off on.


The ONLY reason this took place was government POLITICAL based policy.
this is the worst reason for tariffs.


All I want is government policy to right the wrongs already done and create an environment where prosperity is easier for everyone to reach.
righting wrongs is a slippery slope.  i would have them just remove impediments, rather than constantly worrying about righting wrongs.  prosperity flourishes when redistribution impediments are reduced, not by righting wrongs.  this could just be a semantic difference between us?


Like I said, my views are based on my personal experiences, they won't be right for everyone. And it doesn't preclude me from seeing things from another's perspective.
I've been laid off 3 times in my career, and each time i thought things were going to get worse.  looking back, i wish i had quit earlier rather than waiting to get laid off.


The other thing we are going to disagree on is these feed efficiency markers. That's the Maine associations "Bridge to no where."  ;)
we are not going to disagree on FE markers, i don't have faith in these either.  the other two sets, tenderness first, are not necessary if one simply ages a carcass for at least a week, that's why safeway can guarantee their ranchers reserve product, and the marbling genes, will probably only end up being about 20-40% of the genetic portion, with more markers to come for that.  to me, fat distribution is the most important trait, and thank goodness there is a lot of diversity there.  it should be relatively easy to pinpoint the genetic component for this.  my current vision for "my" version of the perfect terminal animal (male and female) is one that is moderately thick, deceptive in fat cover due to the uniform thickness and softness and will not even remotely be considered for a fat show in the near future.

many founding fathers were anti slavery, yet they signed it into law.  things sometimes have a way of working out.  many of the anti slavery people were women.  some were men such as hamilton, adams and too many others that if i listed them i would probably make a mistake, and some who grew up with it and only took a stance after their legacy was revealed to them, Washington, did make some strides to remedy the situation.  to me, the most disgusting founding father was Jefferson.  He was a hypocrite at almost every level.  i wish someone else was around with such a way with words that could spar with adams, monroe, madison and franklin about the declaration.  many that would have seemed able were too idealistic, which is ironic since it appears Jefferson was nowhere near idealistic, perhaps just opportunistic.

i consider myself to be a hypocrite, and wish logic was taught at an earlier level.  standing on mud trying to swing a sword one's whole life requires lots of stamina, which tends to get in the way of efficiency. 
 
Top