And that is the crux of it for me lowlow; you not budging one fraction, conceding that somebody else view may have merit or acknowledging that another's way of viewing something might occasionally be correct is what makes you " the rock. "ruisleipa wrote:
. I've never once seen you change your opinion or admit that someone else might have a point. Even I've done that!
and you two do? pa leaseATG wrote:
And that is the crux of it for me lowlow; you not budging one fraction, conceding that somebody else view may have merit or acknowledging that another's way of viewing something might occasionally be correct is what makes you " the rock. "ruisleipa wrote:
. I've never once seen you change your opinion or admit that someone else might have a point. Even I've done that!
And I am sure you have heard the expression 'dumb as a rock '.
If you are on welfare, then by definition and default YOU are mooching. Your reasons for doing so are a different matter all together.ruisleipa wrote:
yeah ok that's all very interesting and it's all well and good that you have your totally unshakable opinions on everything, but your contstant blanket labelling of 'EVERYONE' on welfare as a 'moocher' 'ALL' Muslims as evil, and so on, is really what is so objectionable. You're so trapped in your little bubble that you seem to have very little or no empathy or sympathy with the rest of the world's population, and concerned only with yourself. That's why you sound like someone writing for the Daily Mail. True, a lot of it is rationally argued, but that doesn't make it right, it just shows that you've created a way of defending your positions to yourself, which is fine, but it doesn't mean anyone else is an asshole for disagreeing with you.lowing wrote:
... history.And this quote from you just indicates that regardless of your own ways of thinking about things you're not interested in really debating or discussing, you're more interested in getting a rise out of people who disagree and trolling the hell out of the forums - no more evidenced than in this thread and the child porn thread, not to mention the Walmart thing where you post a link and then make some blanket statement about how Walmart are gonna get sued by 'the entitled' (what does that word mean again?) with no evidence save your own prejudices. I've never once seen you change your opinion or admit that someone else might have a point. Even I've done that!Now, I will just sit back and wait for the eventual "what if" bombardment
Ho hum. Shall I just sit back and wait for the outraged bombardment from you about how I'm an asshole and should get a job blah blah blah?
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-20 10:11:05)
Sorry ya feel that way.ATG wrote:
And that is the crux of it for me lowlow; you not budging one fraction, conceding that somebody else view may have merit or acknowledging that another's way of viewing something might occasionally be correct is what makes you " the rock. "ruisleipa wrote:
. I've never once seen you change your opinion or admit that someone else might have a point. Even I've done that!
And I am sure you have heard the expression 'dumb as a rock '.
Stop reading so deep. I am for govt. involvement in our nations food supply. The examples you give I can not defend. Only to say that this is the same govt. you want to take over my health....No thanks.Turquoise wrote:
How is that relevant? The food I have available isn't dependent on whether or not I pay taxes toward an agricorporation.lowing wrote:
This would betrue ONLY if you didn't eat.Turquoise wrote:
So is someone's crops. I shouldn't have to pay for a corporation's decisions -- especially for a company that doesn't even need my tax money.lowing wrote:
your health is YOUR business, it is not mine.You're right that they're not the same. One is easily affordable and available (food), and the other is expensive with availability dependent on infrastructure (healthcare).lowing wrote:
You have provided me corruption. Re-read my post.Turquoise wrote:
And again, there's a better argument with socializing healthcare using that exact same logic.
I've provided you the facts, the history, and the logic as to why it makes no sense to subsidize agriculture in the modern world, but still... you just don't get it.
YOUR health, and OUR food supply arre not the same concept.
So socializing medicine makes more sense than subsidizing food.
Like I said, I'm not in favor of socializing or subsidizing either; however, I would sooner support socializing medicine than subsidizing food.lowing wrote:
Stop reading so deep. I am for govt. involvement in our nations food supply. The examples you give I can not defend. Only to say that this is the same govt. you want to take over my health....No thanks.
Subsidizing medicine is not the same as taking over my healthcare. I am for govt. involvement in medicine as well, just not them legislating my health, or forcing me to pay for yours. This is not to sayreform is not needed. I do believe it is. SImply put, the answers to our health care problems can not be found within the "genious" of govt. Especially ours.Turquoise wrote:
Like I said, I'm not in favor of socializing or subsidizing either; however, I would sooner support socializing medicine than subsidizing food.lowing wrote:
Stop reading so deep. I am for govt. involvement in our nations food supply. The examples you give I can not defend. Only to say that this is the same govt. you want to take over my health....No thanks.
FDA inspections are entirely different from agribusiness subsidies, so if that's the sort of thing you're implying you support, then we can agree on that.
ya lost me on that oneeleven bravo wrote:
rye bread is lowings mirror image
Subsidizing medicine would be the same thing as what we do with Medicare. Basically, we're putting government funds toward coverage of healthcare for certain people. If we were just talking about socializing health insurance, that's the same thing as subsidizing medicine.lowing wrote:
Subsidizing medicine is not the same as taking over my healthcare. I am for govt. involvement in medicine as well, just not them legislating my health, or forcing me to pay for yours. This is not to sayreform is not needed. I do believe it is. SImply put, the answers to our health care problems can not be found within the "genious" of govt. Especially ours.Turquoise wrote:
Like I said, I'm not in favor of socializing or subsidizing either; however, I would sooner support socializing medicine than subsidizing food.lowing wrote:
Stop reading so deep. I am for govt. involvement in our nations food supply. The examples you give I can not defend. Only to say that this is the same govt. you want to take over my health....No thanks.
FDA inspections are entirely different from agribusiness subsidies, so if that's the sort of thing you're implying you support, then we can agree on that.
FDA yes, as well as supporting farms an farmers as required. REAL support. Not the examples you give.
Look at what the govt. has done for medicare... THey can not even take care of the 65 or over crowd, and you want to turn them loose on all of us...Again...no thanks.Turquoise wrote:
Subsidizing medicine would be the same thing as what we do with Medicare. Basically, we're putting government funds toward coverage of healthcare for certain people. If we were just talking about socializing health insurance, that's the same thing as subsidizing medicine.lowing wrote:
Subsidizing medicine is not the same as taking over my healthcare. I am for govt. involvement in medicine as well, just not them legislating my health, or forcing me to pay for yours. This is not to sayreform is not needed. I do believe it is. SImply put, the answers to our health care problems can not be found within the "genious" of govt. Especially ours.Turquoise wrote:
Like I said, I'm not in favor of socializing or subsidizing either; however, I would sooner support socializing medicine than subsidizing food.
FDA inspections are entirely different from agribusiness subsidies, so if that's the sort of thing you're implying you support, then we can agree on that.
FDA yes, as well as supporting farms an farmers as required. REAL support. Not the examples you give.
You'll have to explain what kind of support you're talking about for farmers.
You're not reading what I'm saying. I said I was against subsidizing and socializing medicine. I was pointing out that subsidization of medicine oftentimes is the same as socialization. I would agree that it hasn't worked for us -- which is why I'm against subsidization of medicine, regardless of whether it involves socialization or not.lowing wrote:
Look at what the govt. has done for medicare... THey can not even take care of the 65 or over crowd, and you want to turn them loose on all of us...Again...no thanks.
As I and many others have already pointed out, the market itself is the best regulator for that. Demand itself best determines what gets grown. We currently subsidize various crops for no good reason. You keep going back to the cash crop idea, but that's not relevant to our market. The cash crop idea only matters in very limited markets where the soil is less fertile to begin with and the farmers truly are poor -- like in Afghanistan.lowing wrote:
As for farmers, subsidize farmers to make sure they plant crops as needed, and not what sells the most. As it is, for the work they do, why not plant what will yield the most profit.
Support for busted crops.
Tax free status as incentive to keep their farms and to grow their farms.
Look bottom line, are you for govt. health care or are you not? I am not. Period.Turquoise wrote:
You're not reading what I'm saying. I said I was against subsidizing and socializing medicine. I was pointing out that subsidization of medicine oftentimes is the same as socialization. I would agree that it hasn't worked for us -- which is why I'm against subsidization of medicine, regardless of whether it involves socialization or not.lowing wrote:
Look at what the govt. has done for medicare... THey can not even take care of the 65 or over crowd, and you want to turn them loose on all of us...Again...no thanks.As I and many others have already pointed out, the market itself is the best regulator for that. Demand itself best determines what gets grown. We currently subsidize various crops for no good reason. You keep going back to the cash crop idea, but that's not relevant to our market. The cash crop idea only matters in very limited markets where the soil is less fertile to begin with and the farmers truly are poor -- like in Afghanistan.lowing wrote:
As for farmers, subsidize farmers to make sure they plant crops as needed, and not what sells the most. As it is, for the work they do, why not plant what will yield the most profit.
Support for busted crops.
Tax free status as incentive to keep their farms and to grow their farms.
In America, this argument doesn't make any sense because the vast majority of farming is done by big business. They aren't struggling for money, so they grow a wide variety of crops to cater to the entire food market.
Again, they don't need the money. They don't need tax breaks. As things currently stand, they are just sucking up tax money because they have deep connections in the government.
I'm not. Not in America, at least. It works in other countries, but the situation is too complicated for it to work here.lowing wrote:
Look bottom line, are you for govt. health care or are you not? I am not. Period.
What keeps everyone from planting bean sprouts is market saturation. The market is large enough that no one crop would be profitable to solely plant unless you are a small farmer. If anything, it would be better for small farmers (the few that exist) to be specialized like that, because they're going to lose against big business for larger markets.lowing wrote:
I see, so when the market says the bumper crop will be bean sprouts for that year, how do you suppose the farmers are kept from all planting bean sprouts?
and you keep gonig back to what govt. does now. I am saying I am for farms and for farmers. I feel as a nation, we are obligated to support our farms and farmers. Perhaps not in the form as it is now. I have said this.
On the issue of health care I am 100% against govt. involvement in my health.
On the issue of our nations bread basket I support govt. involvement and subsidizing failed crops and farmers issues.
Not true, if the forcast predicted bean sprouts selling at 100 dollars a bushel and corn only selling at 25 dollars a bushel. How or why would you suppose corn would be planted without the influence of profit?Turquoise wrote:
I'm not. Not in America, at least. It works in other countries, but the situation is too complicated for it to work here.lowing wrote:
Look bottom line, are you for govt. health care or are you not? I am not. Period.What keeps everyone from planting bean sprouts is market saturation. The market is large enough that no one crop would be profitable to solely plant unless you are a small farmer. If anything, it would be better for small farmers (the few that exist) to be specialized like that, because they're going to lose against big business for larger markets.lowing wrote:
I see, so when the market says the bumper crop will be bean sprouts for that year, how do you suppose the farmers are kept from all planting bean sprouts?
and you keep gonig back to what govt. does now. I am saying I am for farms and for farmers. I feel as a nation, we are obligated to support our farms and farmers. Perhaps not in the form as it is now. I have said this.
On the issue of health care I am 100% against govt. involvement in my health.
On the issue of our nations bread basket I support govt. involvement and subsidizing failed crops and farmers issues.
For large agribusinesses, however, their market share is far too large to specialize. They have to plant a variety of things to maintain their share of the market. The only possible way that everyone would plant bean sprouts is if people only wanted to eat them and nothing else.
The people running agribusinesses aren't stupid. They know what demand there is for a given crop. It doesn't matter how profitable a crop is compared to others when it comes to demand for food overall.lowing wrote:
Not true, if the forcast predicted bean sprouts selling at 100 dollars a bushel and corn only selling at 25 dollars a bushel. How or why would you suppose corn would be planted without the influence of profit?
Yeah, Food Inc. is pretty good. I think marine posted a thread about that a long time back.Kmarion wrote:
There was a study on TV the other night comparing eating healthy (a diet of fresh veggies, fruits, and whole grains), to eating crappy.. frozen pizza's, processed food, etc. It was nearly twice the expense of feeding a family of four. Ridiculous.
Also, watch Food inc if you ever get a chance.
You mean the shit grain fed industrialized beef you Americans useTurquoise wrote:
Yeah, Food Inc. is pretty good. I think marine posted a thread about that a long time back.Kmarion wrote:
There was a study on TV the other night comparing eating healthy (a diet of fresh veggies, fruits, and whole grains), to eating crappy.. frozen pizza's, processed food, etc. It was nearly twice the expense of feeding a family of four. Ridiculous.
Also, watch Food inc if you ever get a chance.
The worst thing about our agricultural market is that we seem to subsidize the cost of all these things that are terrible for our health.
Beef, corn syrup, etc....
Good point.... still though... Fish is generally better for your health, although you have to be careful about mercury contamination.Cybargs wrote:
You mean the shit grain fed industrialized beef you Americans useTurquoise wrote:
Yeah, Food Inc. is pretty good. I think marine posted a thread about that a long time back.Kmarion wrote:
There was a study on TV the other night comparing eating healthy (a diet of fresh veggies, fruits, and whole grains), to eating crappy.. frozen pizza's, processed food, etc. It was nearly twice the expense of feeding a family of four. Ridiculous.
Also, watch Food inc if you ever get a chance.
The worst thing about our agricultural market is that we seem to subsidize the cost of all these things that are terrible for our health.
Beef, corn syrup, etc....
Free range beef ftw.
I don't eat beef. But you're a dead man once a texan finds your post.Cybargs wrote:
You mean the shit grain fed industrialized beef you Americans useTurquoise wrote:
Yeah, Food Inc. is pretty good. I think marine posted a thread about that a long time back.Kmarion wrote:
There was a study on TV the other night comparing eating healthy (a diet of fresh veggies, fruits, and whole grains), to eating crappy.. frozen pizza's, processed food, etc. It was nearly twice the expense of feeding a family of four. Ridiculous.
Also, watch Food inc if you ever get a chance.
The worst thing about our agricultural market is that we seem to subsidize the cost of all these things that are terrible for our health.
Beef, corn syrup, etc....
Free range beef ftw.
I hope I won't get sued like Oprah lolKmarion wrote:
I don't eat beef. But you're a dead man once a texan finds your post.Cybargs wrote:
You mean the shit grain fed industrialized beef you Americans useTurquoise wrote:
Yeah, Food Inc. is pretty good. I think marine posted a thread about that a long time back.
The worst thing about our agricultural market is that we seem to subsidize the cost of all these things that are terrible for our health.
Beef, corn syrup, etc....
Free range beef ftw.
Not really sure how many ways I can say it.Turquoise wrote:
The people running agribusinesses aren't stupid. They know what demand there is for a given crop. It doesn't matter how profitable a crop is compared to others when it comes to demand for food overall.lowing wrote:
Not true, if the forcast predicted bean sprouts selling at 100 dollars a bushel and corn only selling at 25 dollars a bushel. How or why would you suppose corn would be planted without the influence of profit?
Think of it like this... When ethanol demand went up, it did result in more corn being processed for ethanol, which in turn, did drive up the value of corn. However, despite this dramatic rise in value, it did not suddenly cause most farmers to switch over their yields to just corn. Corn may have increased as a share of their production, but they wouldn't simply grow only corn.
Why? Because there's always going to be a lot of demand for other produce. People aren't going to simply eat what's most valuable, not only because of taste, but because if something is more expensive, most people are going to buy less of it. They'll find cheaper alternatives to eat.
This all results in an equilibrium between demand and supply.
It's basic economics man....
The massive costs involved in removing and panting new crops.lowing wrote:
I see, so when the market says the bumper crop will be bean sprouts for that year, how do you suppose the farmers are kept from all planting bean sprouts?
There are only 2 reasons things spike in value like that.lowing wrote:
Not true, if the forcast predicted bean sprouts selling at 100 dollars a bushel and corn only selling at 25 dollars a bushel. How or why would you suppose corn would be planted without the influence of profit?