Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
all
ParticipantCAR, the problem is not that citizens are consuming the services, but the cost of the services as provided by the government. I don’t need a lifeguard. In my ten years in CA I entered the ocean twice, for the total of 30 seconds. The water is just too cold for me. On the other hand I consume services that some other citizens have no personal need for – like schools or libraries. So, I recognize that we as a bunch do have a need for all that – lifeguards, schools and libraries.
But, can we afford 13 facilitators for 200 actual lifeguards at the current price point? Do libraries need to be open between 8am and 1pm when most kids are in school and most parents at work? Do we need to spend $30MM/year on SDSU athletics program? Does an elementary school need a lit baseball field? There clearly is not enough money. We are being asked to pay more and I think it is fair that we want to audit the current practices before we pay up. The ‘violent’ reaction to news about compensation in public sector is a result of frustration, not ignorance.
ParticipantCAR, the problem is not that citizens are consuming the services, but the cost of the services as provided by the government. I don’t need a lifeguard. In my ten years in CA I entered the ocean twice, for the total of 30 seconds. The water is just too cold for me. On the other hand I consume services that some other citizens have no personal need for – like schools or libraries. So, I recognize that we as a bunch do have a need for all that – lifeguards, schools and libraries.
But, can we afford 13 facilitators for 200 actual lifeguards at the current price point? Do libraries need to be open between 8am and 1pm when most kids are in school and most parents at work? Do we need to spend $30MM/year on SDSU athletics program? Does an elementary school need a lit baseball field? There clearly is not enough money. We are being asked to pay more and I think it is fair that we want to audit the current practices before we pay up. The ‘violent’ reaction to news about compensation in public sector is a result of frustration, not ignorance.
ParticipantCAR, the problem is not that citizens are consuming the services, but the cost of the services as provided by the government. I don’t need a lifeguard. In my ten years in CA I entered the ocean twice, for the total of 30 seconds. The water is just too cold for me. On the other hand I consume services that some other citizens have no personal need for – like schools or libraries. So, I recognize that we as a bunch do have a need for all that – lifeguards, schools and libraries.
But, can we afford 13 facilitators for 200 actual lifeguards at the current price point? Do libraries need to be open between 8am and 1pm when most kids are in school and most parents at work? Do we need to spend $30MM/year on SDSU athletics program? Does an elementary school need a lit baseball field? There clearly is not enough money. We are being asked to pay more and I think it is fair that we want to audit the current practices before we pay up. The ‘violent’ reaction to news about compensation in public sector is a result of frustration, not ignorance.
ParticipantCAR, the problem is not that citizens are consuming the services, but the cost of the services as provided by the government. I don’t need a lifeguard. In my ten years in CA I entered the ocean twice, for the total of 30 seconds. The water is just too cold for me. On the other hand I consume services that some other citizens have no personal need for – like schools or libraries. So, I recognize that we as a bunch do have a need for all that – lifeguards, schools and libraries.
But, can we afford 13 facilitators for 200 actual lifeguards at the current price point? Do libraries need to be open between 8am and 1pm when most kids are in school and most parents at work? Do we need to spend $30MM/year on SDSU athletics program? Does an elementary school need a lit baseball field? There clearly is not enough money. We are being asked to pay more and I think it is fair that we want to audit the current practices before we pay up. The ‘violent’ reaction to news about compensation in public sector is a result of frustration, not ignorance.
ParticipantI am just glad that an attack was prevented when TSA at SF airport made me take the shoes off my 5 month old son. He kicks ass and with the shoes on he can be lethal.
ParticipantI am just glad that an attack was prevented when TSA at SF airport made me take the shoes off my 5 month old son. He kicks ass and with the shoes on he can be lethal.
ParticipantI am just glad that an attack was prevented when TSA at SF airport made me take the shoes off my 5 month old son. He kicks ass and with the shoes on he can be lethal.
ParticipantI am just glad that an attack was prevented when TSA at SF airport made me take the shoes off my 5 month old son. He kicks ass and with the shoes on he can be lethal.
ParticipantI am just glad that an attack was prevented when TSA at SF airport made me take the shoes off my 5 month old son. He kicks ass and with the shoes on he can be lethal.
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]It interesting how the media tries to promote the narrative as advanced by the United States Government. It very much the same tactics used when people questioned the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
They appear to be shocked when a person they interview suggests this all a psy-ops.
As in “what? Are you serious? You really believe this was fabricated?” They then totally ignore the lack of evidence and just persist in this vein.
“You really can not be serious!? Can you repeat what you said for the listening audience?” It does not matter whether the person being interviewed lays out his or her case such as.
Using the example of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch. Mentioning the lies told about the WMDs. Pointing out that the CIA admitted openly it was fabricating Bin Laden tapes. Mentioning all of the press reports of Bin Laden having died years ago. Pointing out how the story continually changed.
All of this is talked over and ignored and the person is more or less mocked as some sort of loony for even suggesting this all faked.
The viewing audience do not see themselves as a loony so they chuckle along with the interviewer.
To add to this farce the US Government now claims they had the home in question under surveillance by the CIA for months yet in all of that time did not take a single picture of Osama Bin Laden entering or leaving.
They claim there was none which begs the question, how did they conclude he was in there?[/quote]
As someone who was on the losing end of a media war I most definitely understand the disconnect between real and reported. What I laugh at is the notion of a secret entity capable of planning and executing conspiracies that involve a lot of people and span years. We just don’t work that way. People will form coalitions to further their own personal agenda, but they will change the allies when the circumstances change. Except Borg and Chuck Norris, of course.
How did ‘they’ conclude he was in there? According to the reports, ‘they’ did not. ‘They’ concluded an important person likely lives there – bin Laden’s courier at the very least – and took the risk. That fits my experience of bystander and math major (analytical thinking and all that) who saw the details of the sausage-making process much better than alternatives.
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]It interesting how the media tries to promote the narrative as advanced by the United States Government. It very much the same tactics used when people questioned the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
They appear to be shocked when a person they interview suggests this all a psy-ops.
As in “what? Are you serious? You really believe this was fabricated?” They then totally ignore the lack of evidence and just persist in this vein.
“You really can not be serious!? Can you repeat what you said for the listening audience?” It does not matter whether the person being interviewed lays out his or her case such as.
Using the example of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch. Mentioning the lies told about the WMDs. Pointing out that the CIA admitted openly it was fabricating Bin Laden tapes. Mentioning all of the press reports of Bin Laden having died years ago. Pointing out how the story continually changed.
All of this is talked over and ignored and the person is more or less mocked as some sort of loony for even suggesting this all faked.
The viewing audience do not see themselves as a loony so they chuckle along with the interviewer.
To add to this farce the US Government now claims they had the home in question under surveillance by the CIA for months yet in all of that time did not take a single picture of Osama Bin Laden entering or leaving.
They claim there was none which begs the question, how did they conclude he was in there?[/quote]
As someone who was on the losing end of a media war I most definitely understand the disconnect between real and reported. What I laugh at is the notion of a secret entity capable of planning and executing conspiracies that involve a lot of people and span years. We just don’t work that way. People will form coalitions to further their own personal agenda, but they will change the allies when the circumstances change. Except Borg and Chuck Norris, of course.
How did ‘they’ conclude he was in there? According to the reports, ‘they’ did not. ‘They’ concluded an important person likely lives there – bin Laden’s courier at the very least – and took the risk. That fits my experience of bystander and math major (analytical thinking and all that) who saw the details of the sausage-making process much better than alternatives.
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]It interesting how the media tries to promote the narrative as advanced by the United States Government. It very much the same tactics used when people questioned the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
They appear to be shocked when a person they interview suggests this all a psy-ops.
As in “what? Are you serious? You really believe this was fabricated?” They then totally ignore the lack of evidence and just persist in this vein.
“You really can not be serious!? Can you repeat what you said for the listening audience?” It does not matter whether the person being interviewed lays out his or her case such as.
Using the example of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch. Mentioning the lies told about the WMDs. Pointing out that the CIA admitted openly it was fabricating Bin Laden tapes. Mentioning all of the press reports of Bin Laden having died years ago. Pointing out how the story continually changed.
All of this is talked over and ignored and the person is more or less mocked as some sort of loony for even suggesting this all faked.
The viewing audience do not see themselves as a loony so they chuckle along with the interviewer.
To add to this farce the US Government now claims they had the home in question under surveillance by the CIA for months yet in all of that time did not take a single picture of Osama Bin Laden entering or leaving.
They claim there was none which begs the question, how did they conclude he was in there?[/quote]
As someone who was on the losing end of a media war I most definitely understand the disconnect between real and reported. What I laugh at is the notion of a secret entity capable of planning and executing conspiracies that involve a lot of people and span years. We just don’t work that way. People will form coalitions to further their own personal agenda, but they will change the allies when the circumstances change. Except Borg and Chuck Norris, of course.
How did ‘they’ conclude he was in there? According to the reports, ‘they’ did not. ‘They’ concluded an important person likely lives there – bin Laden’s courier at the very least – and took the risk. That fits my experience of bystander and math major (analytical thinking and all that) who saw the details of the sausage-making process much better than alternatives.
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]It interesting how the media tries to promote the narrative as advanced by the United States Government. It very much the same tactics used when people questioned the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
They appear to be shocked when a person they interview suggests this all a psy-ops.
As in “what? Are you serious? You really believe this was fabricated?” They then totally ignore the lack of evidence and just persist in this vein.
“You really can not be serious!? Can you repeat what you said for the listening audience?” It does not matter whether the person being interviewed lays out his or her case such as.
Using the example of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch. Mentioning the lies told about the WMDs. Pointing out that the CIA admitted openly it was fabricating Bin Laden tapes. Mentioning all of the press reports of Bin Laden having died years ago. Pointing out how the story continually changed.
All of this is talked over and ignored and the person is more or less mocked as some sort of loony for even suggesting this all faked.
The viewing audience do not see themselves as a loony so they chuckle along with the interviewer.
To add to this farce the US Government now claims they had the home in question under surveillance by the CIA for months yet in all of that time did not take a single picture of Osama Bin Laden entering or leaving.
They claim there was none which begs the question, how did they conclude he was in there?[/quote]
As someone who was on the losing end of a media war I most definitely understand the disconnect between real and reported. What I laugh at is the notion of a secret entity capable of planning and executing conspiracies that involve a lot of people and span years. We just don’t work that way. People will form coalitions to further their own personal agenda, but they will change the allies when the circumstances change. Except Borg and Chuck Norris, of course.
How did ‘they’ conclude he was in there? According to the reports, ‘they’ did not. ‘They’ concluded an important person likely lives there – bin Laden’s courier at the very least – and took the risk. That fits my experience of bystander and math major (analytical thinking and all that) who saw the details of the sausage-making process much better than alternatives.
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]It interesting how the media tries to promote the narrative as advanced by the United States Government. It very much the same tactics used when people questioned the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
They appear to be shocked when a person they interview suggests this all a psy-ops.
As in “what? Are you serious? You really believe this was fabricated?” They then totally ignore the lack of evidence and just persist in this vein.
“You really can not be serious!? Can you repeat what you said for the listening audience?” It does not matter whether the person being interviewed lays out his or her case such as.
Using the example of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch. Mentioning the lies told about the WMDs. Pointing out that the CIA admitted openly it was fabricating Bin Laden tapes. Mentioning all of the press reports of Bin Laden having died years ago. Pointing out how the story continually changed.
All of this is talked over and ignored and the person is more or less mocked as some sort of loony for even suggesting this all faked.
The viewing audience do not see themselves as a loony so they chuckle along with the interviewer.
To add to this farce the US Government now claims they had the home in question under surveillance by the CIA for months yet in all of that time did not take a single picture of Osama Bin Laden entering or leaving.
They claim there was none which begs the question, how did they conclude he was in there?[/quote]
As someone who was on the losing end of a media war I most definitely understand the disconnect between real and reported. What I laugh at is the notion of a secret entity capable of planning and executing conspiracies that involve a lot of people and span years. We just don’t work that way. People will form coalitions to further their own personal agenda, but they will change the allies when the circumstances change. Except Borg and Chuck Norris, of course.
How did ‘they’ conclude he was in there? According to the reports, ‘they’ did not. ‘They’ concluded an important person likely lives there – bin Laden’s courier at the very least – and took the risk. That fits my experience of bystander and math major (analytical thinking and all that) who saw the details of the sausage-making process much better than alternatives.
-
AuthorPosts
