Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Because we are in a crisis situation and a temporary financial incentive to jump start this development is, IMO, completely appropriate.
    So your answer is a redistribution of wealth? On the Obama thread you made this sound as though it were a snide remark.

    You said:

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Sure, because redistribution of wealth solves all the problems we have here, huh?
    I guess so.

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    BTW, you haven't seen me write the smaller government/lower taxes comment in at least a couple of years. The GOP has lost their way in many areas, that being one of them.
    When did they ever believe that? Can you point me to one GOP President who shrank government?

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    I never ever drew a correlation between the Pres. announcement and anything other than lower prices. The facts do not lie. It is a fact that the nose dive began the day after he made the announcement. Oil fell about $30-35 bbl. immediately following his announcement. To suggest that there were other factors influencing the price drop means that the timing was a mere coincidence.
    You've yet to put forth anything empirical that it was anything but that.

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    You have pretty much lost this point already.
    I can't lose what has never existed.
    Last edited by scfire86; 08-20-2008, 01:22 AM.
    They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

    I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
      So your answer is a redistribution of wealth? On the Obama thread you made this sound as though it were a snide remark.

      You said:



      I guess so.


      When did they ever believe that? Can you point me to one GOP President who shrank government?

      Ronald Reagan


      You've yet to put forth anything empirical that it was anything but that.


      I can't lost what has never existed.
      Even if the others failed to shrink government, they certainly grew it at a much lower rate over the aggreate then their Democrat brethren.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
        First, I don't know what a laff riot is. Is that some kind of cartoon?
        This took a two second Google search.

        Laff

        Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
        Second, you're trying to put words in my mouth again. I never said the DoD was efficient. And doing something efficiently is NOT the same as doing something better. Your attempt to steer the argument into a different zip code has failed. If we critique the DoD's efficiency, then they would pale in comparison to successful private military companies like Executive Outcomes or Blackwater. Exec Outcomes was keeping the peace quite well in Angola, but when Bill Clinton led the effort to oust them, the UN came in behind them with almost 10 times as many troops, and couldn't keep the peace.
        And what is the difference in cost for the private entities?

        Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
        Do you think you're the first person to ask that? Robert McNamara already pushed for this almost 40 years ago, and failed. The Navy's needs vary greatly from those of the Air Force. And when you design a plane that can do everything, it ends up being too heavy to do anything well.
        The F-111 is your sole example? Why can't the USAF take over the air wings of the Navy and USMC with planes designed to land on decks. It doesn't have to be the same plane. Why does the USMC exist at all? The Army does ground warfare in all phases of ground warfare (Infantry, Armor, Artillery et al). The Air Force and Navy do air operations.

        Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
        The rest of America's Government programs usually provide both inefficiency and lackluster performance.
        You take them for granted. As an example, the CIA has done an incredible of detecting and preventing threats to the US via continued terrorist acts. You just never read about them. I'm not sure I would want a private firm performing that function. The Feds built the Interstate Highway System. Until then there was no interest for the private sector to build something of that magnitude. Unless you know something the rest of us don't.

        Those are a couple of examples. I could list many more but don't feel like it.
        They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

        I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ECCMac View Post
          Even if the others failed to shrink government, they certainly grew it at a much lower rate over the aggreate then their Democrat brethren.
          Bummer. But Clinton beats all the GOP challengers.

          I know that's a shock to you, but the truth always is. And that doesn't even include the record deficits Reagan left as his legacy.

          http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf
          They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

          I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

          Comment


          • So your answer is a redistribution of wealth? On the Obama thread you made this sound as though it were a snide remark.
            Financial incentives are not even close to redistribution of wealth. That is an intellectually dishonest argument.
            PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

            Comment


            • Interesting on here that quite a lot of people are being reasonable and civilised in a discussion instead of name calling. For my 2 cents, I think the drop in oil prices following Bushs announcement was largely coincidental although it did send a message that America was waking up and the world knows that the US is the best in the world at mobilising once a problem finally gets identified. The drop was largely because of decreasing demand.
              I very much agree with George that nuclear electrical generation is a must and a lot sooner than later. IMO, the govt is going to have to take the lead here, same as in highways, hospitals, schools but hopefully with better results. Finland has just opened the newest nuclear electrical generating facility in the world and its in an area which from an environmental aspect, makes California look backward. It can be done, efficiently and safely, but its going to require a will of govt, people, industry such as was expended in the war effort in WW2. Make no mistake, this is a crisis of far more serious potential than a tin pot dictator. What is done in the next 10 years will have a profound aspect on the livesof our grandchildren and beyond. Hopefully, the govt can actually get the message that they are there to serve the people, the brain trusts and energy companies can form a partnership with govt and viable, clean safe energy alternatives can be put online. At this point in time, nuclear is the only viable alternative and really needs to be pushed. I simply don't know if any govt in the US can get around all the special interest money and ideologies to do it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
                Financial incentives are not even close to redistribution of wealth. That is an intellectually dishonest argument.
                How so? You're still asking someone to pay a price not expected of others. The party not paying has more than the paying party.

                You're the one being intellectually dishonest if you don't understand how an tax incentive or tax deduction is a subsidy of the receiving party.
                They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                  How so? You're still asking someone to pay a price not expected of others. The party not paying has more than the paying party.

                  You're the one being intellectually dishonest if you don't understand how an tax incentive or tax deduction is a subsidy of the receiving party.
                  Here we go again. I am not confused and I most certainly understand redistribution of wealth.

                  The socialist theology of redistribution of wealth occurs when money is taken from the percieved rich (people who have too much) and given to the percieved poor (people who do not have enough). This is done because of the socialist belief that, regardless of how hard you work in life and how succesful you become, you are not entitled to things that less succesful people are not. Of course this redistribution of wealth usually cannot be accomplished voluntarily. The money must be involuntarily confiscated by the government.

                  The best recent example of redistribution of wealth is the movement to confiscate profits earned by "big oil" (whatever that is) and give it to poor people. The fact that these percieved poor people have not worked for this money is irrelevant to them.

                  The flaw in this plan is that it creates a lazy society. The percieved rich have no incentive to do anything to make more money and the percieved poor have no incentive to work, since the government is going to give them money anyway. The other flaw is that this practice generally bypasses the middle class completely.

                  BTW, redistribution of wealth has not been succesful in the long term no matter where it was tried.

                  Contrast this with offering tax incentives to a corporation to entice them to invest in and complete major projects that benefit the public good. Of course, if the project is succesful, the corporation would make a profit. There is no question about that. But that is the reward for investment. Profit. The overall benefit is infrastructure that completely benefits the public good.

                  There are a myriad of projects across the country where tax incentives have spurred projects that support the public good. Tax free trade zones, urban enterprise zones, infrastructure partnerships are but a few examples of what tax incentives can do.

                  That explanation is neither intellectually dishonest or ignorant.
                  PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                    Bummer. But Clinton beats all the GOP challengers.

                    I know that's a shock to you, but the truth always is. And that doesn't even include the record deficits Reagan left as his legacy.

                    http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf
                    Republican Presidents don't shrink government, Republican Congresses do.
                    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
                    -Big Russ

                    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

                    Originally posted by nyckftbl
                    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      How so? You're still asking someone to pay a price not expected of others. The party not paying has more than the paying party.

                      You're the one being intellectually dishonest if you don't understand how an tax incentive or tax deduction is a subsidy of the receiving party.
                      Subsidies and tax breaks for private industry that serve the public good; utilities, large employers (Chrysler for example in the 80's), and banks/mortgage companies, serve the greater good.

                      I have little issue with this. The payout in ongoing taxation and keeping the economic engine going outweighs the costs.

                      When you debate the political POV of the republican party you apply very absolute and exagerated standards.

                      That would be like me saying that the democrats wish to abort every fetus. We know that isn't true.
                      I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                      "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                      "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DennisTheMenace View Post
                        Republican Presidents don't shrink government, Republican Congresses do.
                        If only that were true. No politician is going to shrink government. Why? It's political suicide.

                        Every single person in this country is a part of some special interest...

                        For instance, there are some great opportunities to cut education costs. Then the various SIG's get involved and stir up the parents with half truths or even just their perception of the truth. Fine, so then some say cut special education funds. That would send me over the edge, as I have a need in my family for such services. Then others say, cut spending on sports, and then my neighbor with kids in every activity get's his shorts in a twist...

                        Or, you cut military and are branded weak on defense. True or not.

                        Think of what things the government could cut that would get you upset. Now multiply that by 300 million.

                        I see quite a bit of waste that is being spent in the name of "homeland security", right here in my own backyard... but if it was taken away most of my peers would get stirred up by those in government who like spending money on all sorts of goodies, if that spending was cut.

                        What's the answer... I don't know. I do know that I'm for ANY politician who plans to cut taxes. I honestly believe that there is enough money to run this country, it's how it is being spent that I take issue with.
                        I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                        "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                        "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DennisTheMenace View Post
                          Republican Presidents don't shrink government, Republican Congresses do.
                          Really?? Because the GOP controlled Congress from 2001-2007. Which one of those years did they shrink government?
                          They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                          I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
                            Here we go again. I am not confused and I most certainly understand redistribution of wealth.
                            ......

                            That explanation is neither intellectually dishonest or ignorant.
                            Your explanation would be very accurate if one assumes a level playing field.

                            If you do believe that to be the case you continue to be both dishonest and ignorant (your words).

                            Those groups you wish to incentivize or subsidize are still enjoying the benefits of being part of our society (defense, infrastructure, an educated work, public safety (police and fire) et al) but you've excused them for paying for the services, hence that burden is now placed even greater upon the group without the incentive or subsidy. Hence the redistribution of wealth.

                            And BTW. This concept is a complete contradiction of "free market" principles supposedly embraced by conservatives.
                            Last edited by scfire86; 08-20-2008, 09:47 AM.
                            They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                            I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                              Subsidies and tax breaks for private industry that serve the public good; utilities, large employers (Chrysler for example in the 80's), and banks/mortgage companies, serve the greater good.

                              I have little issue with this. The payout in ongoing taxation and keeping the economic engine going outweighs the costs.

                              When you debate the political POV of the republican party you apply very absolute and exagerated standards.

                              That would be like me saying that the democrats wish to abort every fetus. We know that isn't true.
                              You at least recognize this as a redistribution of wealth. Something George refuses to accept. You also rationalize there is a greater good being served and are willing to accept that as well.

                              Your point at the end is well taken.
                              They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                              I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                                Your explanation would be very accurate if one assumes a level playing field.

                                If you do believe that to be the case you continue to be both dishonest and ignorant (your words).

                                Those groups you wish to incentivize or subsidize are still enjoying the benefits of being part of our society (defense, infrastructure, an educated work, public safety (police and fire) et al) but you've excused them for paying for the services, hence that burden is now placed even greater upon the group without the incentive or subsidy. Hence the redistribution of wealth.

                                And BTW. This concept is a complete contradiction of "free market" principles supposedly embraced by conservatives.
                                Whatever. My points were very clear and very accurate. Your points are distorted and, as usual, implies a huge governmental conspiracy. I have nothing else to add.
                                PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X