Federal grants to pay off federal loans . . .

ZHawke wrote: Dismiss this as being a liberal "rag". I really don't care. But it presents some pretty compelling arguments on what I'm talking about:

priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

I don't dismiss it as a liberal rag, I dismiss it because it is dishonest. It seeks to do the same thing you did earlier, redefine what subsidy means for the purpose of distorting the true picture in pursuit of advancing an ideology. If one wishes to have a debate, that debate should be centered around facts which don't require a redefining of terms to validate one's foundational premise. Tax credits and tax exemptions aren't subsidies. Never have been, never will be regardless of how many times the lie is repeated in the attempt to fundamentally transform it into the truth.

If you want to link to something that honestly discusses the issue I'm more than happy to read it, but links which rely on deception to further their arguments are not worth my, or anyone's, time.

PrintSmith wrote: If you want to link to something that honestly discusses the issue I'm more than happy to read it, but links which rely on deception to further their arguments are not worth my, or anyone's, time.

Or, better yet, why don't you provide a link to something you believe honestly discusses the issue(s) at hand? You repeatedly "accuse" me of misrepresentation, PrintSmith, but offer nothing to disclaim my "misrepresentation" other than your own dissertation to the contrary.

Tax exemptions and tax credits are not now, nor have they ever been, subsidies from the federal government Z. To the best of my knowledge there are no subsidies being provided to the "fossil fuel" industry by the federal government. That is the honest truth of the matter. Attempting to redefine "subsidy" for the sole purpose of including that which would otherwise be excluded to bolster an argument is a dishonest and deceptive practice.

And because there is no honesty in the framing of the argument from the outset, it becomes impossible to do what you are requesting I do. It is impossible, given the attempt to redefine subsidy, to know exactly what those on the left find offensive. Should the "fossil fuel" industry not get the same tax exemptions and tax credits for their expenses that every other business gets according to the federal tax code? If not, why not? Because their modest profits, which are less than what the federal government reaps from their product already, is unacceptable to the left? Or is it because their product is what the left views as unacceptable and so any means used to achieve that end are justified?

PrintSmith wrote: Tax exemptions and tax credits are not now, nor have they ever been, subsidies from the federal government Z. To the best of my knowledge there are no subsidies being provided to the "fossil fuel" industry by the federal government. That is the honest truth of the matter. Attempting to redefine "subsidy" for the sole purpose of including that which would otherwise be excluded to bolster an argument is a dishonest and deceptive practice.

And because there is no honesty in the framing of the argument from the outset, it becomes impossible to do what you are requesting I do. It is impossible, given the attempt to redefine subsidy, to know exactly what those on the left find offensive. Should the "fossil fuel" industry not get the same tax exemptions and tax credits for their expenses that every other business gets according to the federal tax code? If not, why not? Because their modest profits, which are less than what the federal government reaps from their product already, is unacceptable to the left? Or is it because their product is what the left views as unacceptable and so any means used to achieve that end are justified?

Thought so. Wouldn't have expected anything less from you.

And, sadly, the dishonest and deceptive tactics the left employs are all that can be expected of them these days. I'm glad to have the discussion about which tax credits and tax exemptions the "fossil fuel" industry, and every other industry, currently receive that the left feels should be eliminated from only the "fossil fuel" industry, but there has to be a reason, other than the left thinks their modest profit margin is too high, for them to be excluded. And by reason I mean rational argument. "I feel that way" is not a rational argument, it's an emotional one.

PrintSmith wrote: And, sadly, the dishonest and deceptive tactics the left employs are all that can be expected of them these days. I'm glad to have the discussion about which tax credits and tax exemptions the "fossil fuel" industry, and every other industry, currently receive that the left feels should be eliminated from only the "fossil fuel" industry, but there has to be a reason, other than the left thinks their modest profit margin is too high, for them to be excluded. And by reason I mean rational argument. "I feel that way" is not a rational argument, it's an emotional one.

Come, now, PrintSmith. Can you honestly say, with a straight face, that dishonest and deceptive tactics are an exclusive characteristic of the left?

I can honestly say that your latest offering is but the latest misrepresentation of what I said. Nowhere did I say that such tactics were confined to the left. I simply stated that this was the only tactic they currently choose to employ and that sadly we could expect nothing more from them. If one wishes to have a fact based discussion about the issues of the day, the one thing that can't be done is attempt to redefine words in an effort to make them fit your "facts".

If you want to discuss why the "fossil fuel" industry should be the only industry in the Union that doesn't receive the tax exemptions and tax credits that every other industry has access to, then make that argument on what you perceive to be the merits of the argument. Attempting to deceive and confuse the issue by redefining common terms to make the argument sound better robs the one doing so of credibility, the very thing that is needed for the argument to be seriously considered outside the circle of "true believers".

I just figured out the best way to read PrintSmith's post. Read it in Dwight Schrute's voice! It all suddenly makes sense.

PrintSmith wrote: I can honestly say that your latest offering is but the latest misrepresentation of what I said. Nowhere did I say that such tactics were confined to the left. I simply stated that this was the only tactic they currently choose to employ and that sadly we could expect nothing more from them. If one wishes to have a fact based discussion about the issues of the day, the one thing that can't be done is attempt to redefine words in an effort to make them fit your "facts".

If you want to discuss why the "fossil fuel" industry should be the only industry in the Union that doesn't receive the tax exemptions and tax credits that every other industry has access to, then make that argument on what you perceive to be the merits of the argument. Attempting to deceive and confuse the issue by redefining common terms to make the argument sound better robs the one doing so of credibility, the very thing that is needed for the argument to be seriously considered outside the circle of "true believers".

The "implied" message was obvious. I stand by the question.

"ZHawke wrote: Can you honestly say, with a straight face, that dishonest and deceptive tactics are an exclusive characteristic of the left?

PrintSmith wrote: Nowhere did I say that such tactics were confined to the left.

ZHawke" wrote: I stand by the question.

Err, what was the question again? Looked to me like it was answered. Maybe I missed something?