Besides sophistic reasoning, another common way opponents of equal-rights argue against equal-rights is through the use of the non-sequitur - a seemingly logical statement that equates two things that have absolutely no connection.
The cab driver certainly can refuse rides...but the couple would not be asking him to participate in a religious ceremony that directly violated his own religious belief.
If they asked him to witness their marriage, that would be another story.
By your logic, if the photographer asked them not to get married because he didn't believe in same sex marriage, they should honor his request and not get married at all...the cake slices a couple of ways sweet heart.
You beat me to your last line. Dieting is not "for 18 or 24 months". When it's a serious diet, it is forever. I think about how little time (one year after high school) it took to gain 15 pounds and about 3 years after that to hit my highest weight. And now, some 45 years after I have pretty much maintained my current and too-much weight, I realize getting back somewhere in the galaxy of my lower weight is going to take the rest of my life. You are an inspiration to me, but I probably am not going to get as low as I'd like. However, I can nip off a pound or so every now and then and hope that near-stability will be a sign of progress.
shhesh, somebody got up on the grumpy side of the bed.
I hope Medical-marijuana patient Bob Crouse gets $$$ from the city for what DA May put him thru with the bogus arrest and mistreatment of his MMJ plants. Maybe now the city will take us MMJ patients more seriously with how they treat us according to the COLORADO STATE LAW!
Good for you Ralph and thanks for sharing. Wish you the best with your plan; sounds like you're on track.
The sad thing is this is all true about our local newspaper.
The staff is mostly made up of interns from Palmer High School who simply sit around listening to the police scanner, and write paragraphs ending with "updates to follow"...which they never do because the paper can't afford any reporters to do the follow up.
Most of the staff is involved in sitting at King Soopers trying to give away copies of the paper which most people refuse, except occasionally those will use them to sleep on around the corner later that night.
Their inaccuracies in stories and the failure of anyone on whom they report to recognize themselves or the events in the articles is legendary...the names are made public but the stories are changed to assure the arrest of the innocent.
By the way, Colorado Rancher, I commend your egalitarian attitude toward the farm bill. Far too many people who advocate cutting food stamps, including members of Congress, nevertheless want to continue receiving benefits from the subsidies and direct payments to farmers.
But I must reiterate, IMHO it will mean an end to family farming in the USA. Notice I do not mourn for the food stamp program under those conditions, because food prices will drop low enough to make up for the loss and then some.
You write, "We have the best farmers and ranchers in the world..." We also have the best factory workers in the world, but that did not prevent the off-shoring of manufacturing to China, where slave labor produces shoddy and often dangerous products for sale to America. We can look forward to a future where farmers who are not the best in the world will produce our food in countries where public health codes are not the best in the world and enforcement is either haphazard or totally non-existent.
I hope, Colorado Rancher, you are addressing the author of this article, Jim Hightower, when you ask, "What billionaires are you talking about with access to these services?" and, "Where do you get your information from?" because I never made the allegation, defended it, or commented upon it.
Since Mr. Hightower does not participate in this blog, I thought I'd take a moment or two to check it out for you. As it happens, the article very clearly recommends to readers, "...contact the Environmental Working Group: ewg.org." About two or three clicks from the EWG homepage I discovered the answer to your question. See:
Spoke to an employee of the federal government, here at our local farm service agency. He like I feel you are mis informing people, as far as who has access to farm programs. Again Where do you get your information from?
Exactly do away with the programs. Let people keep more of their money. The government should not be an answer all for everything. Again there are strict income limits to be eligible for farm programs. What billionaires are you talking about with access to these services?
Farm subsidies "are tax money taken from some to give to others." The money farmers pay in taxes and fees does not begin to cover all the pay outs to crop "insurance" beneficiaries. Otherwise private enterprise would be offering this insurance product instead of the federal government.
Now again with income limits to be eligible for farm programs. How are all of the billionaires that your talking about accessing these programs? By the way the income limit is much less than a billion dollars.
Without government programs many farmers would go broke. Production would be scaled back. Prices would rise. At that point it would not make sense to raise a crop at a loss. In a free market it would no longer be sensible to grow crops at a loss. Could you make money growing corn at the projected $4.00 corn this year?
I said nothing about unemployment insurance. The only insurance I referenced was crop insurance. Food stamps have nothing to do with excess food, and has nothing to do with insurance. Food stamps are tax money taken from some to give to others. Money the tax payer earned. A reduction in food stamps will not cause less demand for food, people will still eat. And no all our food will not come from Mexico. We have the best farmers and ranchers in the world, and that will never change.
"Put the mayor in charge of Utilities".... YIKES, no way!!! In that case, maybe Denver isn't a great role model after all. It wouldn't work with our Mayor for sure. Nobody that wins a political popularity contest is likely to have the experience or skill necessary to be in charge of a large, four service Municipal Utility like we have, in the way that Bach likes to be "in charge". The lack of respect or cooperation some perceive between Bach and the Council is an exercise of balance of power and Council's unwillingness to be bullied, in most cases. I say, bravo to that!
A cut in food stamps means a cut in demand for food means a fall in food prices. The new farm bill will not, I believe (correct me if I am wrong), raise subsidy levels for farmers, which means eventually farm income will decline. At that point farmers will ask for (or demand) higher subsidies or expansion of the food stamp program or both.
My guess is that the so-called "job creators" and their servants in the government are planning to stick it to farmers, like they did to workers, and will reduce subsidies instead, but slowly, over time, so that the bankrupt farmers do not all hit the labor market all at once. Within a decade or two all our food will come from Mexico, just as today all our manufactured goods come from China.
Displaced American farmers will not get food stamps.
There are so many things wrong with your analysis, Colorado Rancher, it is hard to decide where to begin to correct them.
You write, "The programs are a government ploy to keep food prices low." On the contrary, the program is designed to keep food prices artificially high, and by "artificially" I mean higher than the prices would be in a truly free market.
You write, "Without the programs food prices would raise [sic] to the level that they need to be at in order for a farmer to make a living." Without federal support food prices would fall, farmers would not be able to make a living and most would go bust.
Your most telling comment is, "Many years it doesnt pay to raise a crop, due to weather or price. That is what the programs and insurance are for." For many years now American jobs have been exported to China to take advantage of their enormous supply of slave labor. To paraphrase you, that is what food stamp programs and unemployment insurance is for. The food these "insured" workers consume is not "bread from our neighbors table," as you so sentimentally put it, but excess production that would otherwise be plowed under or destroyed.
So, you begrudge working families access to "programs and insurance" similar to those you enjoy because they might get to eat some food that would have been thrown away anyway.
There is a natural enemy.
That little food stamp flower does consume 80 percent of the funds in the farm bill.
By the way that little food stamp flower makes up 80% of the farm bill. Farm bill is a misnomer.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation