Politics

[Scott CWO]

Yes but he hasn’t much of a chance.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I'm NOT a PHD, nor any other kind of Historian (just wanted to be clear!).

Here is an idea,
1) The pilgrims came to America to avoid religious persecution. I assume this would not be counter to Romans 13.
2) Then forward a couple generations and the government they fled from is again applying unwanted control over them.
3) If a government is allowed to spread and control (colonization) over new peoples, can't the peoples fight back? Are these colonizers 'valid' governments under Romans 13?

Sorry for the beer napkin level ideas.

AJ

I hear you. Valid point. The Bible teaches to suffer persecution with gladness. Earlier I said that Jesus Himself stated that if you’re persecuted in one city you need to flee to another. Fleeing persecution is completely justified, even advised.

From what I can tell all the colonies were founded by British subject with charters of one kind or another, so under authority.

The only one that wasn’t was the Plymouth one founded by the pilgrims so they would’ve had recourse if they hadn’t voluntarily put themselves under rule of the crown in the 1690s. Unfortunate case. They fled persecution and had to merge with Massachusetts out of necessity

The vast majority never stopped being British subjects and the ones who did became subjects again long before 1776.

We’re not talking about American Indians who actually were colonized. For all intents and purposes the colonists were the colonizers and were British subjects so the authority was real and legitimate.

IMHO

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

D

Am I mistaken that while Roman 13 says to submit to rule of law the submission is conditional .. meaning if the rule of law is against what the lord teaches then we do not have to submit

The idea is correct but the caveat is provided elsewhere, not in Romans 13. Check out Acts chapter 5

 

[AJ Peacock]

I hear you. Valid point. The Bible teaches to suffer persecution with gladness. Earlier I said that Jesus Himself stated that if you’re persecuted in one city you need to flee to another. Fleeing persecution is completely justified, even advised.

From what I can tell all the colonies were founded by British subject with charters of one kind or another, so under authority.

The only one that wasn’t was the Plymouth one founded by the pilgrims so they would’ve had recourse if they hadn’t voluntarily put themselves under rule of the crown in the 1690s. Unfortunate case. They fled persecution and had to merge with Massachusetts out of necessity

The vast majority never stopped being British subjects and the ones who did became subjects again long before 1776.

We’re not talking about American Indians who actually were colonized. For all intents and purposes the colonists were the colonizers and were British subjects so the authority was real and legitimate.

IMHO

I believe all men are created equal, the king was just a man and not a 'valid government', he didn't abide by the laws that the colonies believed were they 'partnership'. So the King/British government actually voided any kind of linkage. I don't see how any belief in Christ and turning the other cheek ... is a reasonable response to blatant oppression.

Sorry if this was a ramble, had a couple whiskey's

AJ

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

In the gospels Jesus constantly criticized, mocked and even resorted to violence against the Pharisees and sadducees who were the law for the Jewish people. Even though they lived under Rome the Jewish law took precedent to Jewish people and when that law was twisted against what god wanted Jesus let them know.

I don’t know that I’d say mocked but definitely harshly criticized. The “violence” I assume was when he cleansed the Temple twice.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

WHERE do you get that Paul was a humble fisherman, he was a studied pharisee and in line for the chief Sanhedrin position, and most likely spoke 3 lanquages and was a roman citizen. That is before he was knocked down by a blinding brite holy lite from THE Christ.

He said Peter, not Paul.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Believe it .GOD has ALWAYS used imperfect men doing things in imperfect ways to advance his cause and for his Glory.WE all fall short in many ways but his truth marches on , and stand fast in your liberty. by the way just curious how you feel about the Romans over throwing Judea and Jerusalem and the Temple, 68-70 AD. Or even the war between the states 1862.

As to the Roman destruction of the Temple and the slaughter that went with it, I believe it was a judgment on the Jewish Temple for rejecting and crucifying their Messiah. There was no need for the Temple after Christ came and the Jewish religion had been apostate for years.

That said I’m not a replacement theorist. Read the through story of the Bible, Romans chapters 9-11 and Revelation and you’ll see God has not abandoned His people Israel and the Church most definitely has not replaced them. We’ve just been grafted in.

On the Civil War/War between the States, the south rebelled against the authority over them. A clear violation of Romans 13 and an entire people group were freed. The war had the appropriate outcome.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I believe all men are created equal, the king was just a man and not a 'valid government', he didn't abide by the laws that the colonies believed were they 'partnership'. So the King/British government actually voided any kind of linkage. I don't see how any belief in Christ and turning the other cheek ... is a reasonable response to blatant oppression.

Sorry if this was a ramble, had a couple whiskey's

AJ

Read 1 Peter 2: 13-17. He specifically mentions an individual ruler.

 

[Tanks]

Maybe you guys should start a "Bible Study" thread to discuss the nuances of the Bible. After all it was the reason for many wars in Europe.

European wars of religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Maybe you guys should start a "Bible Study" thread to discuss the nuances of the Bible. After all it was the reason for many wars in Europe.

European wars of religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A lot of nuances to those wars themselves.. A lot of Catholic persecution of Protestants too. Also a lot of Protestants returning the favor. People burned at the stake for their beliefs by the Catholic “church”. And a whole lot of unconverted bad actors on both sides. Gotta be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Hunt anything]

I am a huge Reagan fan. But I might suggest the Iran-Contra deal was the low point of his career.

Those were particularly good days for Canadians though. I remember after we had smuggled out a number of U.S. embassy staffers through our embassy that every time I went to visit my relatives in Michigan people were thanking us like we had done it ourselves and buying us drinks. Good times.

I would venture that the 2 lowest points of Reagans presidency were not blowing Iran off of the face of the earth when they blew up our Marine barracks in Beirut in ‘83 and when he was duped by Tip O’Neal into amnesty for the illegals in the country in exchange for a strong border bill and enforcement which never happened.

 

[cwpayton]

He said Peter, not Paul.

MY bad , I guess I read it wrong. claiming age deficit

 

[cwpayton]

Maybe you guys should start a "Bible Study" thread to discuss the nuances of the Bible. After all it was the reason for many wars in Europe.

European wars of religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

TANKS You would be the first to be invited. Actually that is one of satans greatest tricks , infighting ,division, descension, among men. GUESS that says some people put a lot of importance on what you believe about God , whether right or wrong.

 

[fourfive8]

Since Big Easy is all in for the virtue signaling of green energy, I think he should be paying for the increased cost, ALL the cost, of the green power and not forcing others down that path of self righteous indanity.

Also, the residual parts, outdated and failed structural components can be taken to his neighborhood for disposal. Throw the pieces into an incinerator and presto…easy disposal. Big Easy and those like him never get the facts straight nor can they be force fed the facts. Much of a windmill’s structure is carbon fiber based. It is NOT simply a fiberglass reinforced base polymer. A nasty secret of carbon fiber based structures is that the carbon fiber becomes friable upon failure, handling or post-use disposal. Those on the “inside” of the handling and disposal industry for such products call it another “asbestos”, equal or worse than the original. If buried or encased in a poured epoxy casket, no one is quite sure of the half life of the carbon fiber. But given the nature of carbon, at least millions of years. If burned in an incinerator, two hazards are produced —- airborne carbon fiber particles and toxic byproduct gases of the base “plastics/polymers”.

So Big Easy, keep your green power generation in your back yard, you pay for the increased electricity cost and mitigation cost of the environmental damage done during the manufacturing. And you keep the disposal in your backyard and you pay for that disposal. Then you can feel good and virtuous about it.

 

[WAB]

The entire "Separation of Church and State" argument is based on an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, a group of Churches who were concerned about Government encroachment on the rights of Churches and individuals. The letter explained that the Government was strictly prohibited from interference in Church affairs, but also the religious conscience of individual Christians.

It was NOT a prohibition on Christian activity within Government, as the left would have you believe. We open every session of Congress with prayer, and have Chaplains for this very purpose.

The Constitution places limits on the Government, not Churches or Christians.

The letter can be found here

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

www.loc.gov

Well said!

 

[CoElkHunter]

Since Big Easy is all in for the virtue signaling of green energy, I think he should be paying for the increased cost, ALL the cost, of the green power and not forcing others down that path of self righteous indanity.

Also, the residual parts, outdated and failed structural components can be taken to his neighborhood for disposal. Throw the pieces into an incinerator and presto…easy disposal. Big Easy and those like him never get the facts straight nor can they be force fed the facts. Much of a windmill’s structure is carbon fiber based. It is NOT simply a fiberglass reinforced base polymer. A nasty secret of carbon fiber based structures is that the carbon fiber becomes friable upon failure, handling or post-use disposal. Those on the “inside” of the handling and disposal industry for such products call it another “asbestos”, equal or worse than the original. If buried or encased in a poured epoxy casket, no one is quite sure of the half life of the carbon fiber. But given the nature of carbon, at least millions of years. If burned in an incinerator, two hazards are produced —- airborne carbon fiber particles and toxic byproduct gases of the base “plastics/polymers”.

So Big Easy, keep your green power generation in your back yard, you pay for the increased electricity cost and mitigation cost of the environmental damage done during the manufacturing. And you keep the disposal in your backyard and you pay for that disposal. Then you can feel good and virtuous about it.

Don’t forget the “recycling” of solar panels. There’s more toxic stuff in those than windmills and good luck finding a company that does it.

 

[fourfive8]

Don’t forget the “recycling” of solar panels. There’s more toxic stuff in those than windmills and good luck finding a company that does it.

Agreed, absolutely!

 

[shootist~]

What’s wrong with parking on the street?

Parking in front of your own house would not bother me in the slightest. Maybe that's what you prefer - or need. How about if your neighbor blocked you from doing that day after day?

 

[BTB Joe]

I got you covered good sir. Subsidies occur in many ways, the first is below. Subsidies are also more than just direct payments. Like when Trump starts a trade war and china refuses to buy soybeans and then Trump doles out an additional $42.5 billion in farm subsidy direct payments in one year.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160622_cea_coal_leasing.pdf

This study discusses how private coal royalties are 5X what the federal ones are. His env regulations are another. Just because Coal wasn't paying for the costs, doesn't mean someone wasn't. The regulations below just transferred the costs back to coal.

Obama admin regulations required Coal powerplants to add Selective Catalytic Reduction and Flue Gas Desulfurization to Coal plants to remove SOx and NOx. Some already had this tech, but it was expanded greatly under his admin. And lastly his Mercury regulations. Coal plants are the largest anthropogenic source of these emissions, historically accounting for more than half in the US in any given year. Trump is now actively trying to roll these back.

One of the posters here said that CEOs aren't evil villains, but...deliberately increasing mercury emissions in the environment sounds pretty evil to me. Plus natural is also cheap and plentiful since fracking came along. So it's not like coal was going to be able to compete anyways.

So, is it fair to say that there was no subsidy (in the traditional sense of the government providing direct financial incentives) that Obama removed?
You point to low coal royalties and provide a reference I suppose offering that as a quasi subsidy. The majority of those leases are Powder River Basin coal and only affect a few individual companies that operate there. The leasing is done via a bidding process. Its been my experience that buyers and sellers tend to finalize deals when the parties agree on the value of the item on offer. The fact that a private landowner in KY, WV, PA, AL, etc received far more doesn’t seem to me to be relevant.
Coal is not just coal… PRB is sub bituminous coal. Bituminous and anthracite bring higher prices generally due to higher heating value (BTU/lb). PRB is “steam” coal; some of those higher royalties are likely in metallurgical (coke making) grade coal which command far higher prices. And why would we assume that a property owner in one location would necessarily be willing to accept the same payment as someone in another location? There were quite a few posts a few pages back talking about building lot/acreage and building costs $/ft2). Seemed like a lot of variability to me. Was the guy selling at the low end getting screwed? Well maybe but it could be he just sold for what the best buyer was willing to pay.
I don’t care to go deep on Obama era coal regs but I will say that industry efforts to reduce emissions (you mention flue gas desulfurization) were underway decades before Obama took office. You can google it or use AI to verify but probably more than 70% of plants had scrubbers in place before he was elected. He did implement MATS and the Clean Power Plan which effectively chilled investment (e.g. new builds or continued upgrades) by putting some requirements on plants that were essentially unachievable with best available technology. Clearly, this was all part of a push to move generation away from coal. And yeah, low gas prices associated with the shale boom played a major role as well.
I heat with gas. We have a glut of it here in the northeast now. As I understand it, pipeline networks designed to deliver gas to this area aren’t as effective at sending it out of here to where it is most valuable. I suspect that things will level out one day and our utility bills will reflect more commodity pricing than the current hub price.
I’m an all of the above guy who spent a career in mining. I have no problem with nuclear but as a mining engineer who has traveled a fair amount across the US, I can tell you I’ve been to exactly one uranium mine (and it was by no means large scale). Just saying that you might want to google what percentage of US uranium usage is sourced here.
Again, I’m an all of the above guy but I do believe wind and solar get a pass that fossil fuels don’t get (permitting, bonding, etc). Might interest you to watch a film produced by none other than Michael Moore.

Pretty easy just to wave away manufacturing cost, disposal, wildlife interaction, social concerns (noise, visual dislike) as non issues when you believe the benefit outweighs the cost and the cost doesn’t directly affect you (NIMBY). The documentary provides some insight from an unlikely source.
It flies under the radar most of the time but here in the PJM grid, we still rely on a few coal workhorses to kick in when the temperatures rise or fall dramatically. They keep the lights on and some folks realize it. Most only see the headline “Eco group sues to prevent extension of closure deadline of XYZ plant.” FERC and the grid operators are tasked with keeping the lights in. Those groups are not.

 

[Pheroze]

Ok guys, just scroll through the various replies over the last two pages - everything from parking on the street to the Lord’s role in the American revolution. I am not saying this thread is dynamic, I am not sure what to call it. It’s certainly entertaining.