Vance Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 It's not exactly true that things are worse in the oil and gas industry. Things are worse in places where there is a high demand for workers, and right now in ND that happens to correlate with oil and gas.And thank God for what is going on in ND, otherwise we would be seeing energy prices SKYROCKET!!
MorningStar Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 They do for the calorie intake. And when you are hungry, that's what's important. Like i said, pretend you have a hungry child who will get to eat one meal for the next 24 hours. Are you going to give him a double cheeseburger and fries for $5, or are you going to buy him a small bag of baby carrots?Ooh! The carrots! Kids love carrots. 1
bluebell Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 And thank God for what is going on in ND, otherwise we would be seeing energy prices SKYROCKET!! It has helped in some areas, that's for sure, and it's a blessing for a lot of people. It was a blessing for my family. But like everything, it's not without it's HUGE dark side as well.
The Nehor Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 LOL!!! Fox is far more balanced than the rest of the so called mainstream media.Yes, that is what Hannity and Limbaugh say and radio entertainers are always right.When you say "so called" are you suggesting there is a different mainstream media they are not a part of? Or did you copy that line from somewhere else without thinking through what it actually means?
Vance Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022923872Oh gee. A snarky comment about a screen shot with no context. That and a $1.50 will buy you a soda.
The Nehor Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 What a crock!!The food in this country is brought to you by for profit private corporations.The clothing in this country is brought to you by for profit private corporations.The energy in this country is brought to you by for profit private corporations.?You realize they were complaining about subsidies to corporations right? Are you for the government using tax dollars to subsidize corporations or did you just start ranting without realizing what you were actually responding to?
The Nehor Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Oh gee. A snarky comment about a screen shot with no context.That and a $1.50 will buy you a soda.Which will make you fat.
Vance Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 They do for the calorie intake. And when you are hungry, that's what's important. Like i said, pretend you have a hungry child who will get to eat one meal for the next 24 hours. Are you going to give him a double cheeseburger and fries for $5, or are you going to buy him a small bag of baby carrots?A higher calorie intake does not translate a satiated appetite. In fact, if the calories come from sugars and/or carbohydrates they actually increase the appetite.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 There has never been a case since the minimum wage was first implemented where that happened. Business taxes go to pay for the services those businesses use. Are you saying that business should be able to just steal those services?1.This is false plain and simple. If your base is 1 dollar to produce your good. And the government steps in and says you have to pay your employee 1 dollar were it was 50 cents, the cost has to be shifted to the consumer. The employer just can't eat it. 2.I have no idea what you are talking about. Business is private indivuals. They all pay taxes. Not one gets away from it unless the government doesn't treat every one equally. Which they don't. No one escapes payroll tax from a business.
thesometimesaint Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 And thank God for what is going on in ND, otherwise we would be seeing energy prices SKYROCKET!! Like this. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/30/22113442-mile-long-train-carrying-crude-oil-derails-explodes-in-north-dakota?lite
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 A rightist not complaining about government subsidiziation because it is subsidizing a corporation? Hmmmmmmm....... I have not seen this. I am willing to bet that Vance would agree with my words on government subsidation. Anyway I think I get it. He started it you are finishing it. Carry on.
bluebell Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Like this. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/30/22113442-mile-long-train-carrying-crude-oil-derails-explodes-in-north-dakota?lite I'm not understanding your point here. This crash was caused by a grain train which derailed. How does this have anything to do with what Vance said?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Interesting because I lost 35 pounds the last few months by cutting out refined sugar, white rice, white pasta, white bread, etc. I weighed myself every day and during the few times I had those foods as my only option, I gained. Another day I pig out on steak with sauteed mushrooms, huge salad with bacon and my homemade vinaigrette, cheese, summer sausage, etc. and I would wake up 2 pounds lighter. Cutting calories has never worked for me, but for some reason I can eat whatever I want if it's not those particular foods. Dave's Killer bread is killing my wallet though!Right you cut carbs which are high in calories. That huge steak and mushrooms has less calories than your pizza and spaghetti. One bagel has 400 calories. However if you have a 10 oz fellet of samon and some veggies you are probably under 400 callories and you just filled your self up more than you could with the bagel.
bluebell Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 A higher calorie intake does not translate a satiated appetite. In fact, if the calories come from sugars and/or carbohydrates they actually increase the appetite. Can i get a reference on this?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Yes, that is what Hannity and Limbaugh say and radio entertainers are always right.When you say "so called" are you suggesting there is a different mainstream media they are not a part of? Or did you copy that line from somewhere else without thinking through what it actually means?Well Hannity may be more for Fox but Rush is not. He considers Fox part of the mainstream. For the record I don't watch any fox news.
changed Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) changed, on 06 Jan 2014 - 9:36 PM, said:The war in heaven was overa.) forcing people to be good orb.) allowing people to be good of their own free will and choice... I prefer the version that a.) was actually removing all law so there was no sin, thus allowing people to do whatever they want in mortality and they would still be able to get back into heaven with Lucifer's alleged "get out of jail free card". I find it completely unbelievable that a group that wanted to be forced to be good would then turn on the ultimate good himself, God. Those who accept Satan as master today (unknowingly) tend to be the same type....not the ones who would go to the extreme of being forced to be good. Even those who see government as a way to force others to be good want it to be their 'good'....thus they wouldn't be the ones being forced, but living however they wanted.The war was over agency and power -(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 4:3)3 Wherefore, because that Satan brebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;Satan wanted power to control everyone - to take away everyone's agency, and in return promised no pain. (Bible Dictionary | W War in Heaven:Entry)It was evident that if given agency, some persons would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication (see Isa. 14:12–20; Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:4–13; D&C 29:36–38; Moses 4:1–4).b.) Voluntarily given, vs.a.) given by the gov (who will throw you in jail if you don't pay up - so not voluntarily given) charity - which would you prefer to receive? which would you prefer to give? It is true that poverty will exist in societies. However, the problem comes with the increase of poverty due to human greed or due to an economic system that puts profit before people or due to a system that has the mechanisms for the increase of poverty. Amidst great wealth, too many people are forgotten.Wealth is not a scarce resource though, it is not a limited entity, if I write a song & sell it for millions of dollars, I did not take anything away from anyone, I did not use up any natural resources, I did not increase poverty in any way - to the contrary, anything I buy & anything I make increases the economy and creates jobs. Profit before people? Prophet = pleasing the people, making something that people want and need. Greed? Prices that are set by supply and demand does not equate to greed. When prices are artificially set (by the gov for example) contrary to the natural value of products, that's when you see bare shelves, bankrupt companies, high unemployment, and poverty. Edited January 7, 2014 by changed
Vance Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 A rightist not complaining about government subsidiziation because it is subsidizing a corporation? Hmmmmmmm.......Just because you haven't seen me complain about it doesn't me that I don't. Personally, I don't like the government subsidizing ANYTHING!!! Not even medical research or the postal service. If you price them by calorie per dollar the soda and potato chips are probably the better deal.Then they should be able to get along with LESS of it. But they don't. You'd have to buy a large amount of carrots to live off of them and celery is almost calorie neutral.And why do you want "calorie neutral"? We have established that they eat TOO many calories. It takes as much or more calories to digest then the human body can extract from it.LOL!!! You are just spinning now.
bluebell Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Right you cut carbs which are high in calories. That huge steak and mushrooms has less calories than your pizza and spaghetti. One bagel has 400 calories. However if you have a 10 oz fellet of samon and some veggies you are probably under 400 callories and you just filled your self up more than you could with the bagel. There are actually over 500 calories in 10 oz. of salmon. The veggies would add calories as well, but how much would depend on what kind and how much you were eating. Just saying... 1
Vance Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I'm not understanding your point here. This crash was caused by a grain train which derailed. How does this have anything to do with what Vance said?Irrelevant points are becoming common responses.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Can i get a reference on this?Yeah, me. Just look at me. All I eat is carbs and sugar.
bluebell Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 LOL!!!You are just spinning now. He's actually right. http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/myth-or-fact-celery-has-negative-calories.html "The majority of energy that celery has locked within it passes through our digestive system without being processed. The cellulose calories celery has is irrelevant; all that counts is the six or so food calories we can get from each eight-inch stalk. Since it takes more than six food calories of energy to digest the celery, the net result is that digesting celery does, in fact, exhaust calories. In a very real sense, celery is a "negative calorie" food."
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 There are actually over 500 calories in 10 oz. of salmon. The veggies would add calories as well, but how much would depend on what kind and how much you were eating. Just saying... Ok 6 oz. Just saying though 10 oz is a lot.... and that (6 oz) would keep you feeling fuller than the bagel. I was thinking of a green beans, corn, and carrot blend. Oh well.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 He's actually right. http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/myth-or-fact-celery-has-negative-calories.html "The majority of energy that celery has locked within it passes through our digestive system without being processed. The cellulose calories celery has is irrelevant; all that counts is the six or so food calories we can get from each eight-inch stalk. Since it takes more than six food calories of energy to digest the celery, the net result is that digesting celery does, in fact, exhaust calories. In a very real sense, celery is a "negative calorie" food."That and Iceberg Lettus.
bluebell Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Yeah, me. Just look at me. All I eat is carbs and sugar. That doesn't actually support what Vance said.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) That doesn't actually support what Vance said.And I am hungery all the time as result I am huge. Edited January 7, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Recommended Posts