# conrad looks to spend



## swift

Shaug, what do you think of this increased spending plan by Sen. Conrad?

"My new program will complement crop insurance by providing some protection from shallow losses that crop insurance typically does not cover. And it will provide protection against multi-year price declines that crop insurance does not protect against," Senator Conrad told the ag leaders.

The latest statistics show that North Dakota leads the nation in the production of 15 different crops, with $7.3 billion in agriculture production from 32,000 farms. North Dakota receives more per capita from agriculture programs in the Farm Bill than any other state.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

What! Are you surprised? You should not be this is what he has done since being in office nothing new with this!


----------



## swift

Not suprised, Just interested in Shaug's perspective on it. He is all for reduction in federal spending. The FB claims to want out of the goverment pocket book. So I thought this would be a good place for a news release denouncing any enhancements of the farm bill. I won't hold my breath though. Intresting that ND is the largest recipient per capita of the federal farm bill. We must have a boat load of people on food stamps. Because as GST claims a very small percentage actually goes to farmers.


----------



## leadfed

swift said:


> Not suprised, Just interested in Shaug's perspective on it. He is all for reduction in federal spending. The FB claims to want out of the goverment pocket book. So I thought this would be a good place for a news release denouncing any enhancements of the farm bill. I won't hold my breath though. Intresting that ND is the largest recipient per capita of the federal farm bill. We must have a boat load of people on food stamps. Because as GST claims a very small percentage actually goes to farmers.


Yet without the handouts you can not be "economically profitable" as a farmer as gst once noted.


----------



## dakotashooter2

Farm programs are OK when they have multiple benefits, but they should not be guaranteeing an income. All businesses have their risks. In farming the biggest risk is the weather. You farm...you take the risks that go with it. A concrete contractor doesn't get assistance if it rains for a month and he can't pour concrete, a grocery store doesn't get assistance if the produce crop is poor and they lose business because they can't get any, a hospital doesn't get assistance if nobody is sick.


----------



## Bad Dog

I would not like to see agriculture completely privatized like say hardware stores. IMO food is a necessity and there needs to be some government intervention/control. If there wasn't prices could sky rocket or there could be shortages. I also believe that for certain ag subsidized programs, such as insurance, etc., there needs to be an accountability to the tax payer as it is their money the ag industry is receiving. Since most of these farm programs are still voluntary, everyone has the 'right' to not enroll. Why not, stipulate that if an individual wants to enroll in a program, for example let's say crop insurance, so many acres will need to be seeded back to a grass cover on their land in exchange for receiving so many dollars of insurance or something of another program? No one should just get tax payer dollars for free.


----------



## gst

What is NDFB official position on govt subsidies for agriculture? :wink:

What percentage of the total farm bill dollars is actually for producction agriculture? :-?

Aw heck while you are at it, what percentage of a tax dollar goes directly to PRODUCTION ag. That's an easy one as the answer was given you a while back. 

How many people involved in production ag are there per capita in ND compared to other states?

Oh yeah, where does the US rank in the percentage of disposable income spent on food?

I know more of those pesky questions! 



Bad Dog said:


> I would not like to see agriculture completely privatized like say hardware stores. IMO food is a necessity and there needs to be some government intervention/control. If there wasn't prices could sky rocket or there could be shortages. I also believe that for certain ag subsidized programs, such as insurance, etc., there needs to be an accountability to the tax payer as it is their money the ag industry is receiving. Since most of these farm programs are still voluntary, everyone has the 'right' to not enroll. Why not, stipulate that if an individual wants to enroll in a program, for example let's say crop insurance, so many acres will need to be seeded back to a grass cover on their land in exchange for receiving so many dollars of insurance or something of another program? No one should just get tax payer dollars for free.[/quote]
> 
> Bad dog, while it certainly appears you comprehend this govts emphasis on food security over the years and the necessity of it for a nations security into the future in some manner, do you realize farmers that volantarily take out Federal crop ins. have to pay a premium each year just like any other form of insurance such as say healthcare?
> 
> I wonder if leadfeds web site has the amount of dollars our operation has paid into the Federal Crop Insurance program in premiums over the same time period?  For coverage in our area we paid a premium of roughly $22 dollars/acre for various crops.
> 
> 3000 acres times $22 for you guys relying on a taxpayer funded education :-? is $66,000 a year in premiums.


----------



## swift

Fact 1. ND gets the highest amount of money from the farm bill per capita

Fact 2. ND has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country

Fact 3. ND schools have shrinking enrollments.

Deductive reasoning would be the lion share of money being sent to ND from the farm bill is not going for food stamps or school lunches.



> What is NDFB official position on govt subsidies for agriculture?


Can you substantiate your claim that the *NDFB* has an official position on govt subsidies?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Can you substantiate your claim that the NDFB has an official position on govt subsidies?


_Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by swift » Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:08 pm 
Look at the NDFB's policy book you will be amazed at the crap they believe.[/i] 
http://www.ndfb.org/image/cache/Final_book_11_web.pdf

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by gst » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:51 pm

National Farm Policy 229
We believe that all government agricultural program payments should be eliminated. We favor a private insurance program for risk management. --ID#: 1509/11

Swift, recall this from earlier on (at the very start) in the conversation about this amendment? *It comes from the very link you provided*. You seem to wish to overlook this policy in condemning this org. Perhaps you simply wish to "cherry pick" which policies you post! 

I beleive that would be an example of "substantiation" of a statement! :wink:

Also from the link you provided:
Risk Management/Crop Insurance 330
We support de-coupling the Federal Crop Insurance Program from the farm program. --ID#: 1523/11

I do not beleive I referenced what percentage of the farm bill dollars spent in ND went to food stamps. So what percentage of the Farm Bill "dollars" go directly to production ag and not conservation or food programs on a NATIONAL level?

I have no doubt the "lions share" of Federal dollars coming into ND is indeed going to ag production as we are one of the leading states IN ag production in this country. And we have one of if not the highest per capita number of people involved in production agriculture. So indeed "deductive reasoning" would conclude we will receive a proportionately higher percentage of dollars targeted to prodction ag! :-?

In "fact" we lead the nation in production in several commodities. But then again, you did mention this didn't you.

"The latest statistics show that North Dakota leads the nation in the production of 15 different crops, with $7.3 billion in agriculture production from 32,000 farms"

Perhaps that "fact" has a little to do with this other "fact" you mention!



swift said:



Fact 2. ND has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country

Click to expand...

 :wink:



swift said:



Fact 1. ND gets the highest amount of money from the farm bill per capita

Click to expand...

Say how many times do you beleive those dollars are turned over before they leave our state? How many different "pockets" do you think they ulitimately end up in? 
:-? 
Perhaps some of these Farm Bill dollars even go back to the Govt in the form of Medicare "taxes" and ultimately end up back in YOUR pocket swift! :wink: _


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> What is NDFB official position on govt subsidies for agriculture? :wink:
> 
> What percentage of the total farm bill dollars is actually for producction agriculture? :-?
> 
> Aw heck while you are at it, what percentage of a tax dollar goes directly to PRODUCTION ag. That's an easy one as the answer was given you a while back.
> 
> How many people involved in production ag are there per capita in ND compared to other states?
> 
> Oh yeah, where does the US rank in the percentage of disposable income spent on food?
> 
> I know more of those pesky questions!
> 
> 
> 
> Bad Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not like to see agriculture completely privatized like say hardware stores. IMO food is a necessity and there needs to be some government intervention/control. If there wasn't prices could sky rocket or there could be shortages. I also believe that for certain ag subsidized programs, such as insurance, etc., there needs to be an accountability to the tax payer as it is their money the ag industry is receiving. Since most of these farm programs are still voluntary, everyone has the 'right' to not enroll. Why not, stipulate that if an individual wants to enroll in a program, for example let's say crop insurance, so many acres will need to be seeded back to a grass cover on their land in exchange for receiving so many dollars of insurance or something of another program? No one should just get tax payer dollars for free.[/quote]
> 
> Bad dog, while it certainly appears you comprehend this govts emphasis on food security over the years and the necessity of it for a nations security into the future in some manner, do you realize farmers that volantarily take out Federal crop ins. have to pay a premium each year just like any other form of insurance such as say healthcare?
> 
> I wonder if leadfeds web site has the amount of dollars our operation has paid into the Federal Crop Insurance program in premiums over the same time period?  For coverage in our area we paid a premium of roughly $22 dollars/acre for various crops.
> 
> 3000 acres times $22 for you guys relying on a taxpayer funded education :-? is $66,000 a year in premiums.
Click to expand...

What does a heart sugeon pay in malpractice insurance? A LOT more than 66000 per year and he probably has a fraction of the claims you do yet he is not subsidized?


----------



## gst

lead, the dollar figures were not given to engage in a pissin match , merely to dispell the apparent beleif that these insurance programs have no monetary inflow involvement from anyone other than taxpayers.

Does your website you like to post list the dollars paid into the Federal Crop Insurance programs in premiums by producers?

lead how is that heart surgeon compensated for preforming an operation on someone without the ability to pay the full cost of the operation on their own, perhaps someone that might be on say Medicaid?


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> lead, the dollar figures were not given to engage in a pissin match , merely to dispell the apparent beleif that these insurance programs have no monetary inflow involvement from anyone other than taxpayers.
> 
> Does your website you like to post list the dollars paid into the Federal Crop Insurance programs in premiums by producers?
> 
> lead how is that heart surgeon compensated for preforming an operation on someone without the ability to pay the full cost of the operation on their own, perhaps someone that might be on say Medicaid?


Are you comparing a subsidy saving a persons life to your getting a subsidy to live an "economically profitable" lifestyle gabe  ?!?


----------



## Plainsman

> lead how is that heart surgeon compensated for preforming an operation on someone without the ability to pay the full cost of the operation on their own, perhaps someone that might be on say Medicaid?


That says mountains that lets a person look into another's values. :eyeroll:

gst the reason for Medicaid is compassion for the ill, not to make the surgeon rich. Your statement simply left me speechless. Only for a moment though. It falls right in with the NDFB. It falls right in with their amendment. It falls right in with caring more about farm money than the quality of life for your neighbor. I am sitting here pondering where society is going and how self centered we have become. Not just farming, but everything. We are not the nation, nor the people we once were. I think I will go to my shop now and mourn the passing of America and the entitlement society we are becoming.


----------



## gst

As said in another thread, you guys are letting your personal animousity cloud your ability to reason.

You rail against tax dollars going into the fam bill and yet do not realize the vast majority of them go towards food assistance programs. So should we then make the jump as you have that you wish people to starve ?? :roll:

The point is as shown in an article posted on FBO that doctors are going broke as a result of cuts to the medicaire program. Tax dollars go into the medicare program. "deductive reasoning" could then be used to suggest tax dollars have "subsidized" in a form those heart surgeries that the doctor preforms on a percentag of people.

NOONE is sugesting they should not preform the surgery or those needing it shoudl not receive it. :eyeroll:

Hey Agriculture is subsidized, I think we can all agree on that, do not let your personal animousity blind you to the realiztion that MANY occupations and idustiries receive federal tax dollars as well. Simply because they do not have a line item in the Federal budget does not mean subsidies outside of agriculture do not exist.

There was a report out recently that 25,000 people die each day worldwide as a result of stravation. So should we then suggest your opposition to wetlands being developed to produce more food simply so you have a few more ducks to shoot or salamanders to trap translates into a heartless indifference to those starving peoples plights??? :roll: :eyeroll:



Plainsman said:


> That says mountains that lets a person look into another's values


 :eyeroll:

For those that can not tell, that was sarcasm.

Try for once leaving your personal animousities at the door and debating a subject on it's merits. :roll:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> As said in another thread, you guys are letting your personal animousity cloud your ability to reason.
> 
> You rail against tax dollars going into the fam bill and yet do not realize the vast majority of them go towards food assistance programs. So should we then make the jump as you have that you wish people to starve ?? :roll:
> 
> *Absolutely a lot of the dollars in the farm bill go towards food assistance programs. That does NOT alleviate the fact that a lot of those monies also go into the farmers pockets.....like the 330,000 that went into yours right.*
> The point is as shown in an article posted on FBO that doctors are going broke as a result of cuts to the medicaire program. Tax dollars go into the medicare program. "deductive reasoning" could then be used to suggest tax dollars have "subsidized" in a form those heart surgeries that the doctor preforms on a percentag of people.
> 
> NOONE is sugesting they should not preform the surgery or those needing it shoudl not receive it. :eyeroll:
> 
> Hey Agriculture is subsidized, I think we can all agree on that, do not let your personal animousity blind you to the realiztion that MANY occupations and idustiries receive federal tax dollars as well. Simply because they do not have a line item in the Federal budget does not mean subsidies outside of agriculture do not exist.
> 
> *Absolutely MANY occupations and industries receive tax dollars but some do not need them....like you or shaug*.
> 
> There was a report out recently that 25,000 people die each day worldwide as a result of stravation. So should we then suggest your opposition to wetlands being developed to produce more food simply so you have a few more ducks to shoot or salamanders to trap translates into a heartless indifference to those starving peoples plights??? :roll: :eyeroll:
> 
> *25,000 people in the USA die daily due to starvation? Lets figure out our own problems and then we will deal with the rest of the world. I'd hate for you to be subsidized even more so that you can feed other countries.*
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That says mountains that lets a person look into another's values
> 
> 
> 
> :eyeroll:
> 
> For those that can not tell, that was sarcasm.
> 
> Try for once leaving your personal animousities at the door and debating a subject on it's merits. :roll:
Click to expand...


----------



## 6162rk

this question is for gst.

how much of your crop insurance premium was or is subsidized?


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman wrote:That says mountains that lets a person look into another's values
> 
> For those that can not tell, that was sarcasm.
> 
> Try for once leaving your personal animousities at the door and debating a subject on it's merits.


Not really, it's what you get out of a guy with 40 hours of psychology. Words mean things other than what comes out of the mouth. It often divulges what's in the head.



> You rail against tax dollars going into the fam bill and yet do not realize the vast majority of them go towards food assistance programs. So should we then make the jump as you have that you wish people to starve ??


That relates some, but not completely with the senario that you suggested.



> NOONE is sugesting they should not preform the surgery or those needing it shoudl not receive it.


That was not the intention. My intention was simply to say it was not the surgeon they had in mind when they set up a system to take care of the elderly. Evidently what I was trying to get across was not as bad as how you took it. I hope you understand that now.



> Hey Agriculture is subsidized, I think we can all agree on that, do not let your personal animousity blind you to the realiztion that MANY occupations and idustiries receive federal tax dollars as well. Simply because they do not have a line item in the Federal budget does not mean subsidies outside of agriculture do not exist


I understand that, and agree. However, there is much animosity rising against agriculture because we are being constantly reminded that if we are not a farmer you have little respect for us or care about our welfare. The NDFB amendment comes close to outright saying your better than anyone else, or conversely we are worth nothing to farmers.



> There was a report out recently that 25,000 people die each day worldwide as a result of stravation. So should we then suggest your opposition to wetlands being developed to produce more food simply so you have a few more ducks to shoot or salamanders to trap translates into a heartless indifference to those starving peoples plights???


That is total ignorance of wetland ecology. The concern is a depleted aquifer, the concern is flooding downstream, the concern is highly alkaline water destroying valuable farm land. I could go on, but my honey do list is calling.


----------



## Plainsman

Back for a moment. Your right about animosity, but it's not so personal as it is against a prevailing idea that has raised it's ugly head as of late. If you have suggestions around it I am all ears. Here is the problem: for years I have supported ag support prices and not complained. For years I have supported agriculture in other ways. My family is made up mostly of farmers, but that is changing. I always felt that we are on this trip through this world together.

What has changed? The entitlement mentality within agriculture. The entitlement mentality combined with the idea others are worth less. Farmers who are so foolish to state "if your not a rancher your not sh&t". For years it was unthinkable to speak out against agriculture in North Dakota. Have you noticed that changing? I have. I think it started with pay hunting. Now I am not begging to hunt for free I have all the land I can ever hunt available to me. Here is what I think happened. Hunters have always felt they owe landowners, and I agree we do. However, when you pay to hunt we no longer owe the landowner anything. We certainly don't owe them tax support, or a feeling of gratitude because we have paid for every privilege. It's not a good situation, and I don't like it either, but I am willing to look this problem in the face and not try sweep it under the rug and let it simmer until it explodes.

Now we have NDFB wanting this amendment. What other industry has this type of protection? Protection that leaves us no avenue even the courts to stop diminishing of our quality of life. It tells me NDFB puts no value on my life simply because I am not a farmer. Yes animosity is growing, and not just with me, I'm simply one of the first to speak up. That doesn't make me the most angry, it makes me the one that wants to make you aware of it. Better to know than be surprised right? Knowing this can make us all aware, and perhaps avoid further conflict.


----------



## gst

6162rk said:


> this question is for gst.
> 
> how much of your crop insurance premium was or is subsidized?


The premium dollars that the producer pays comes out of their own pocket.

Lead, you like to post the amount of revenues collected from the govt over a 15 year period for a vaiety of things, does your website you get this information off also list the dollar amounts paid INTO Federal Crop Insurance programs over that same 15 year period ?



Plainsman said:


> Farmers who are so foolish to state "if your not a rancher your not sh&t".


Plainsamn pull your big girl pants on and realize there are arrogant fools in any occupation. :wink:

Start to try and understand why this contry has engaged in "food security" programs and operhaps you might begin to get a little better perpective. Until you honestly understand why these programs were put in place andwhat they have provided the citizens of this country, it is useless to continue a conversation with someon so thin skinned they can not overlook some fool making a "supid" comment.


----------



## gst

plaisamn here is a link for you. http://salem-news.com/articles/july1920 ... _71906.php

_Jul-19-2006 15:37 
Americans Spend Less Than 10 percent of Disposable Income on Food
Salem-News.com 
The Department of Agriculture reports that food remains a bargain for Oregon and U.S. consumers.

Salem-News.com

(SALEM) - The U.S. consumer is spending a bit more of their disposable income to purchase food than the previous year, but they still enjoy the cheapest, most abundant food supply in the world, according to new statistics released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

"It's no secret that Americans continue to get a bargain with their food dollar," says Katy Coba, director of the Oregon Department of Agriculture. "We should all thank our productive and efficient farmers and ranchers for making that bargain possible."

USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) has recently released food expenditure statistics for 2005. They show that Americans are spending, on average, 9.9 percent of their disposable income on food.

That's up slightly from 9.7 percent in 2004 but very consistent with figures over the past five years. The percentage dropped to single digits for the first time in recorded U.S. history in 2000.

*Twenty years ago, American consumers spent 11.7 percent of their disposable income on food. Thirty years ago, that figure was 15.1 percent. Going back in history, Americans spent about 20 percent of their income on food about the time today's baby boomers were born. In 1933, the figure was more than 25 percent.*

Statistics are not available for individual states, but Oregon generally follows the national trend.

In terms of dollars, U.S. families and individuals spent more than $895 billion on food in 2005 compared to just $11 billion in 1933. Of course, the nation's population has risen dramatically. But the end result of increased productivity in agriculture is a percentage of income for food that is the envy of the world.

"Better equipment, mechanization, use of hybrid seeds, fertilizer, and crop protectant chemicals have all contributed to increased production in the U.S., which has lowered the cost of food to the public," says Brent Searle, ODA analyst and special assistant to the director.

"That has allowed 90 percent of the American consumer's disposable income to be spent on things other than food, such as housing, automobiles, leisure, and recreation."

Not all food available to the American consumer these days is grown or produced in the U.S. There are plenty of imported food products. Likewise, much of what comes from U.S. farms and factories heads overseas. But prices have remained relatively low in the United States and Oregon primarily because of high productivity and efficiency by domestic agriculture.

While the low percentage spent on food is good news for American consumers, it has not necessarily translated well to the producer. On average, farmers get back less than 20 cents of every dollar paid by the consumer. The balance primarily goes to processors, wholesalers, and retailers.

Producers receive less than half of what they used to get from the food dollar. In 1950, they received 41 cents out of each dollar. As recently as 1980, that figure was still as high as 31 cents.

Another trend in the U.S. food expenditure statistics is the amount of money spent on food consumed away from home. Last year, spending on food away from home was 48.5 percent compared to 51.5 percent for food prepared and consumed at home.

Thirty years ago, only about 34 percent of those food dollars were spent away from home. Fifty years ago, that figure was 25 percent.

The out-of-the-home food spending has spiked up again after a bit of a drop in recent years.

"We saw that portion spent out-of-home go up quite a bit in the 1990s as convenience became a bigger factor in everyone's busy daily lives," says Searle. "Then it backed off a bit after 9/11 as people tended to stay home a bit more."

Since Oregon food products often find their way into the restaurant and food service industries, the trend of eating out more is valuable to Oregon producers and processors.

USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) also reports the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all food sold in the U.S. increased at an annual rate of 2.4 percent in 2005 and is forecast to increase as much as 3.0 percent in 2006 as retailers pass on higher energy and transportation costs to consumers in the form of slightly higher retail prices. Still, American consumers are getting a bang for their buck when it comes to food.

"When any of us go to the store and buy food, we look at the check register and sometimes feel like we are spending too much," says Searle. "But in comparison to other countries, food is still a bargain."

International statistics provided by ERS only account for the percentage of disposable income spent on food at home. Still, the numbers show huge disparities between the U.S. and other countries.

*The U.S. percentage is 6.1 percent. The next lowest figure comes from consumers in the United Kingdom at 8.3 percent. (Note: No statistics are available in the report for Canada, which would be considered a lower percentage country.)

German consumers spend 10.9 percent of their disposable income on food at home, followed by Japan (13.4 percent), South Korea (13.4 percent), and France (13.6 percent) among high income countries.

Middle income countries include South Africa (17.5 percent) and Mexico (21.7 percent). China (28.3 percent) and Russia (36.7 percent) are seeing rapid decreases in food expenditure percentages but are still relatively high. India (39.4 percent) and Indonesia (49.9 percent) are among the highest when it comes to the amount of disposable income spent on food.*

*It all points back to something Americans often take for granted*.

"There are few other places in the world where you can get the diversity and the amount of food for the dollar you spend than the United States," says Searle.

U.S. consumers can thank American farmers and ranchers, in large part, for that great bargain._

Bruce, If you still wish to beleive this countries ag policies have nothing to do with this, so be it.

I could care less if you never thank a farmer as alluded to in this article, simply realize what they do and the programs this govt engages in are a large part of why this article can state the facts it does as to what the average US citizen pays for the food they consume, and quit expecting a written thank you from every farmer out there for the small little part you pay.

Thankfully the vast majority of sportsmen and consumers realize this unlike a small handful on this site and understand that agriculture and hunting opportunities as well as food production go hand in hand nicely without the constant expectations and demands of thank you"s and public displays of appreciation.


----------



## swift

gst said:


> plaisamn here is a link for you. http://salem-news.com/articles/july1920 ... _71906.php
> 
> _Jul-19-2006 15:37
> Americans Spend Less Than 10 percent of Disposable Income on Food
> Salem-News.com
> The Department of Agriculture reports that food remains a bargain for Oregon and U.S. consumers.
> 
> Salem-News.com
> 
> (SALEM) - The U.S. consumer is spending a bit more of their disposable income to purchase food than the previous year, but they still enjoy the cheapest, most abundant food supply in the world, according to new statistics released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
> 
> "It's no secret that Americans continue to get a bargain with their food dollar," says Katy Coba, director of the Oregon Department of Agriculture. "We should all thank our productive and efficient farmers and ranchers for making that bargain possible."
> 
> USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) has recently released food expenditure statistics for 2005. They show that Americans are spending, on average, 9.9 percent of their disposable income on food.
> 
> That's up slightly from 9.7 percent in 2004 but very consistent with figures over the past five years. The percentage dropped to single digits for the first time in recorded U.S. history in 2000.
> 
> *Twenty years ago, American consumers spent 11.7 percent of their disposable income on food. Thirty years ago, that figure was 15.1 percent. Going back in history, Americans spent about 20 percent of their income on food about the time today's baby boomers were born. In 1933, the figure was more than 25 percent.*
> 
> Statistics are not available for individual states, but Oregon generally follows the national trend.
> 
> In terms of dollars, U.S. families and individuals spent more than $895 billion on food in 2005 compared to just $11 billion in 1933. Of course, the nation's population has risen dramatically. But the end result of increased productivity in agriculture is a percentage of income for food that is the envy of the world.
> 
> "Better equipment, mechanization, use of hybrid seeds, fertilizer, and crop protectant chemicals have all contributed to increased production in the U.S., which has lowered the cost of food to the public," says Brent Searle, ODA analyst and special assistant to the director.
> 
> "That has allowed 90 percent of the American consumer's disposable income to be spent on things other than food, such as housing, automobiles, leisure, and recreation."
> 
> Not all food available to the American consumer these days is grown or produced in the U.S. There are plenty of imported food products. Likewise, much of what comes from U.S. farms and factories heads overseas. But prices have remained relatively low in the United States and Oregon primarily because of high productivity and efficiency by domestic agriculture.
> 
> While the low percentage spent on food is good news for American consumers, it has not necessarily translated well to the producer. On average, farmers get back less than 20 cents of every dollar paid by the consumer. The balance primarily goes to processors, wholesalers, and retailers.
> 
> Producers receive less than half of what they used to get from the food dollar. In 1950, they received 41 cents out of each dollar. As recently as 1980, that figure was still as high as 31 cents.
> 
> Another trend in the U.S. food expenditure statistics is the amount of money spent on food consumed away from home. Last year, spending on food away from home was 48.5 percent compared to 51.5 percent for food prepared and consumed at home.
> 
> Thirty years ago, only about 34 percent of those food dollars were spent away from home. Fifty years ago, that figure was 25 percent.
> 
> The out-of-the-home food spending has spiked up again after a bit of a drop in recent years.
> 
> "We saw that portion spent out-of-home go up quite a bit in the 1990s as convenience became a bigger factor in everyone's busy daily lives," says Searle. "Then it backed off a bit after 9/11 as people tended to stay home a bit more."
> 
> Since Oregon food products often find their way into the restaurant and food service industries, the trend of eating out more is valuable to Oregon producers and processors.
> 
> USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) also reports the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all food sold in the U.S. increased at an annual rate of 2.4 percent in 2005 and is forecast to increase as much as 3.0 percent in 2006 as retailers pass on higher energy and transportation costs to consumers in the form of slightly higher retail prices. Still, American consumers are getting a bang for their buck when it comes to food.
> 
> "When any of us go to the store and buy food, we look at the check register and sometimes feel like we are spending too much," says Searle. "But in comparison to other countries, food is still a bargain."
> 
> International statistics provided by ERS only account for the percentage of disposable income spent on food at home. Still, the numbers show huge disparities between the U.S. and other countries.
> 
> *The U.S. percentage is 6.1 percent. The next lowest figure comes from consumers in the United Kingdom at 8.3 percent. (Note: No statistics are available in the report for Canada, which would be considered a lower percentage country.)
> 
> German consumers spend 10.9 percent of their disposable income on food at home, followed by Japan (13.4 percent), South Korea (13.4 percent), and France (13.6 percent) among high income countries.
> 
> Middle income countries include South Africa (17.5 percent) and Mexico (21.7 percent). China (28.3 percent) and Russia (36.7 percent) are seeing rapid decreases in food expenditure percentages but are still relatively high. India (39.4 percent) and Indonesia (49.9 percent) are among the highest when it comes to the amount of disposable income spent on food.*
> 
> *It all points back to something Americans often take for granted*.
> 
> "There are few other places in the world where you can get the diversity and the amount of food for the dollar you spend than the United States," says Searle.
> 
> U.S. consumers can thank American farmers and ranchers, in large part, for that great bargain._
> 
> Bruce, If you still wish to beleive this countries ag policies have nothing to do with this, so be it.
> 
> I could care less if you never thank a farmer as alluded to in this article, simply realize what they do and the programs this govt engages in are a large part of why this article can state the facts it does as to what the average US citizen pays for the food they consume, and quit expecting a written thank you from every farmer out there for the small little part you pay.
> 
> Thankfully the vast majority of sportsmen and consumers realize this unlike a small handful on this site and understand that agriculture and hunting opportunities as well as food production go hand in hand nicely without the constant expectations and demands of thank you"s and public displays of appreciation.


Is it possible that with the meager commodity prices in 2006 and the high commodity and beef prices in 2012 the percentage may be higher now?


----------



## gst

What must be realized is these commodity prices in 2006 were low globally not just in the US just as in 2011 they have been high globaly. So from that singular perspective there will not be much variance in percentages from country to country. I do beleive Americans, just like every other country are paying more of their disposable income for food now than 5 years ago. (opinion  )(there will likely be exceptions as some countries per capita income has grown substantially)

There are a number of reasons for this.


----------



## 6162rk

gst,

i will rephrase my question.

of the total crop insurance premium what percentage is paid directly out of the producers pocket?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Funny that the subject of cost of food came up on the thread. Tonight one of the local channels did piece on cost of food and the increases are having a profound affect so the better question is what are todays food costs not what they where 7 years ago!


----------



## gst

6162rk said:


> gst,
> 
> i will rephrase my question.
> 
> of the total crop insurance premium what percentage is paid directly out of the producers pocket?


I do not know the exact answer to your question as I beleive dependant on a variety of factors the value may change.


----------



## 6162rk

how did we go from the issue of crop insurance to how much our food costs?

gst,

the answer to my question according to my honest farm friends is. the federal government is paying approximatley 2/3's of their crop insurance premium. they all laugh and say we can't loose. according to them 2011 was a year that anybody could have made a killing by not farming do to the crop insurance program.


----------



## indsport

At least there is one thing I can support for the NDFB, namely the removal of all federal taxpayer dollars from the crop insurance program. As far as I know, I get no subsidy for my homeowners insurance (everyone pays) and I get no help for my car insurance. Why shouldn't farmers shoulder the entire cost of crop insurance? Food security? Again, off topic. Back to my other chores and back in a week to check up. I see nothing changed or got resolved over on the other discussion on NDFB amendment so no comments over there.


----------



## zogman

Side note......... Flood insurance is also subsidised. I have had flood insurance since 1994. It made us whole in 97. Not enought people carry flood insurance and FEMA still helps them out. That is not right. Even if we in GF, are so call "protected" I will still cary flood insurance because it is so cheap.

So why would not all ag producers not carry crop insurance????


----------



## Plainsman

Liberals and conservatives both buy votes. Liberals take money from those who earn it and give it to those who don't. Then those who got money they didn't earn vote for the liberal. Conservatives let those who earned their money keep it. So people who get to keep more of the money they earn vote for conservatives. It is also the difference between socialists and capitalists. 

Conrad is a democrat. Democrats are liberal. Therefore if you earn money Conrad will take it from you to give to someone who didn't earn it. In turn the socialist who relieved the money will vote for Conrad. So is Conrad doing something for the socialist receiving the money, or is he doing it for himself? I think it's time to send another Washington socialist packing.

In the end all socialists are all like the Occupy Wall Street crowd. They all want your money. Some still have fragments of pride and tell you they earn it, while others have no pride at all and will tell you that you owe them. 52% of us pay taxes, while the other 48% parasitize the productive. That my friends is American Social Studies 101. :wink:

So if your conservative and someone calls you greedy ask them this question: Which is actually greedy the man who wants to keep what he earned, or the man who wants for free what another man has earned? If your conservative and weigh 200 lbs a liberal is like having a 190 lb leech stuck to your throat.


----------



## gst

6162rk, it really does depend on what type coveragge and plan one has as to the percentage that is "subsidized". At one time CAT coverage which provided little coverage in reality was 100% subsdized. Now it can be any where from 30% to 60% dependant on buy ups, crop type, location, ect...

As mentioned, if one takes the time to dig a little deeper, there are in fact many things that are "subsidized" by tax payer dollars. To say "food security" is "off topic" when talking any sort of govt subsidy in farming simply shows a lack of understanding of the concept the govt has maintained in accomplishing the "food security" this nation has experieced. You can not have a coversation regarding this govts policies for agriculture without including the cost of food consumers here in the US pay. If you wish to you are simply "cherry pickin" what you wish to hilight to further your arguement while overlooking base factors.

The fact farmers do pay various amounts for their Federal crop ins. premiums was merely pointed out as a response to a statement that farmers were getting taxpayer dollars for "free" in these insurance programs. While some producers play the system, I also know some that have paid far more into the Federal Crop Ins. program than they have taken out.



zogman said:


> So why would not all ag producers not carry crop insurance????


given the significant dollars that producers do pay in premiums, some producers that have a histoy of not falling below production levels whereby ins kicks in question the necessity of it.



6162rk said:


> the answer to my question according to my honest farm friends is. the federal government is paying approximatley 2/3's of their crop insurance premium. they all laugh and say we can't loose. according to them 2011 was a year that anybody could have made a killing by not farming do to the crop insurance program.


Quite a large area of NC ND was saturated and simply unable to be seeded so crop ins did kick in. With the commodity contracts many farmers had in place there was significantly more money to be made an acre if these crops would have been able to be seeded than what was avalible thru ins.

There is an old saying "don't bad mouth the farmer with your mouth full". I would much rather it said "don;t bad mouth this countries ag policies with your mouth full and change in your pockets". It really is about math. A farmer receives X amount of dollars from the govt
(taxpayers). He produces enough food to feed Y amount of consumers (taxpayers) . This production and "control" of it by the govt (taxpayers) saves these consumers (taxpayers) Z amount of dollars.

So if Y x Z is greater than X these programs have been a net gain for ths govt/ taxpayer/consumer. Wether they have been or not I am sure is open to "discussion" by some on here. :wink:

I can say as a producer, if one examines the long term "cost" of these programs to agriculture, it can be argued they have NOT been a net benefit to agriculture's best interests over the years.


----------



## Plainsman

My belief is that the people who have the money should decide who gets it. Our politicians have become so corrupt in buying votes that they allow those who want it to decide who gets it.

Person A being a taxpayer
Person B being a politician
and person C, D, E, being those who suck at the trough.

Person A should decide if C, D, or E get anything and how much. Person A through their representatives should direct where money goes. The problem is C, D, and E are up for sale and B will promise the group with the most votes most of the money.

Our forefathers were brilliant when setting up this nation. To guard the minority against tyranny they gave each state two senators regardless of population. Now the ag states yield power beyond their populations and although we are protected from the majority the majority is not protected against a freeloading for sale minority. Capitalism is under assault by politicians with few scruples and those who want what they have not earned.

Before anyone builds that into anti ag I speak of all subsidies of any kind. Yes people besides agriculture get it, but that's like saying robbing a bank is ok because other people do it. Subsidies are not all bad, but they should not become a way of life and go on forever. Through corruption the taxpayer is loosing his voice in America. There is a reason Farmers Union always pushes voting for liberals. I have relatives that still like Obama, :eyeroll: and think Michelle is the best thing since sliced bread.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Our forefathers were brilliant when setting up this nation. To guard the minority against tyranny they gave each state two senators regardless of population. Now the ag states yield power beyond their populations and although we are protected from the majority the majority is not protected against a freeloading for sale minority


Nice rhetoric Bruce.

So once again you are claiming that a industry whoose producers make up less than 5% of our population "controls" govt because their votes are being "bought"? Perhaps it is simply the fact that this industry is so integrated into our nations prosperity and security thu out the years that people (the majority) without blinders on (the minority)(even here on Nodak) can see it's importance. I just read an article that said agriculture and food production accounts for 23 million jobs in the US and is the largest employer. But hey, since agriculture and everyone related are apparently nothing more than "freeloading for sale minorities" surely there is nothing of significance in what it contributes to this nations well being. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

Did anyone see the republican debates last night? Did you catch the comment from Newt about agriculture? It's a huge waste that he has tried to reform, but complemented them on the ability to protect their free government money.


----------



## gst

Bruce, does the ability of a nation to produce the food needed to provide it's citizenry with low cost, safe, readily avalible food have any national security value?


----------



## Plainsman

gst since NDFB wants to do away with these things I thought you would support it. If we are to remain a capitalist system we have to get away from these socialist programs. Also, we are very in debt and can not afford this anymore. The book I am reading (Politics - According to the Bible) is against price supports also. His research for the book included collaboration with two agriculture economists from Iowa State University. It's a system that is burdensome on the taxpayer and provides a benefit for the farmer only.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Bruce, does the ability of a nation to produce the food needed to provide it's citizenry with low cost, safe, readily avalible food have any national security value?


So are you unwilling to address this simple direct question?



Plainsman said:


> It's a system that is burdensome on the taxpayer and provides a benefit for the farmer only.


Or should we simply assume from this statement you beleive these govt farm programs have had no value to consumers and have nothing to do with the food security this country has experienced for a number of decades?

I think your statemetn above shows how little you really understand the policies this govt has. As to supporting the govt involvement in agriculture being phased out indeed I do support it.



Plainsman said:


> If we are to remain a capitalist system we have to get away from these socialist programs. Also, we are very in debt and can not afford this anymore.


 As we are broke and no longer can afford this, do you then support the govt and taxpayer dollars being phased out of conservationa and wildlife programs as well?

In these times of economic turmoil you refernence, what is more important continueing to have this country remain as the lowest percentage of disposable income being spent for the food they consume or having another duck to shoot? I mean how many dollars are being spent on wildllife and conservation already and you support a measure to take more ?? :wink: 

Or perhaps we can understand that both are acheivable and we do not have to pit agriculturalists against sportsmen with rhetoric like so often seen on here.



Plainsman said:


> Our forefathers were brilliant when setting up this nation. To guard the minority against tyranny they gave each state two senators regardless of population. Now the ag states yield power beyond their populations and although we are protected from the majority the majority is not protected against a freeloading for sale minority. Capitalism is under assault by politicians with few scruples and those who want what they have not earned.


----------



## Plainsman

Plainsman wrote:


> It's a system that is burdensome on the taxpayer and provides a benefit for the farmer only.


gst responded:


> Or should we simply assume from this statement you beleive these govt farm programs have had no value to consumers and have nothing to do with the food security this country has experienced for a number of decades?


I should have directly quoted that, but I used the word burdensome. The idea was from economists.

gst wrote:


> In these times of economic turmoil you refernence, what is more important continueing to have this country remain as the lowest percentage of disposable income being spent for the food they consume or having another duck to shoot? I mean how many dollars are being spent on wildllife and conservation already and you support a measure to take more ??


Everyone is going to have to give up some, but I knew you would want to continue with the subsidies etc. The 5% of oil money I got a kick out of saying double it because it gets so little and NDFB will use that part that says "encourage young farmers" to rob the coffer. If they want to steal hunting license money they will try to steal this fund. If they can keep their hands off it then 5% would be geat. I'm afraid it will be .005 percent for wildlife.



> Or perhaps we can understand that both are acheivable and we do not have to pit agriculturalists against sportsmen with rhetoric like so often seen on here.


You get those ideas because it's such a one way street here in North Dakota. Our legislature has passed laws that will not allow us to buy milk from Minnesota, they have passed laws that will not let landowners sell to anyone they want, we get pro ag laws that would be ok if they were not anti everyone else. Enough is enough and people are getting sick of it. I'm just one of the first speaking up, but there are dozens for every voice you hear. Stop dumping on us and telling us how good it is for us.

Edit: oh and you get more tax breaks than any other business. That's what you are a business, and nothing more or less.


----------



## water_swater

What are you even arguing about?

Fact is the government wants food as cheap as possible. If your too full to leave the couch you won't be standing in front of the White House ****** off and starving. Fact is right now your only ****** off enough to piss and moan to one another probably on your laptop from your couch. Does America have some messed up policies, Yes. I teach and the poorest kids play hockey, dress the best, have an xbox and life is good. Do you think a kid really believes a teacher who could provide less than his minimum wage handout taking mom when I tell him hard work will pay off? What do they produce for the country?

While your punch the keys on your laptop stuffing your faces so full you can't speak, eat something sticky so you won't touch the keyboard either. Get off your can and complain to someone who can actually do something!

Have a nice day.


----------



## leadfed

Gst....like I asked before are you willing to get rid of subsidies even though you say that is what makes you "economically profitable" as a farmer? You said it bud and I'll post it again for ya if you want. I wish I could get cold hard cash for the work I do so I could be "economically profitable" in my profession.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Gst....like I asked before are you willing to get rid of subsidies even though you say that is what makes you "economically profitable" as a farmer? You said it bud and I'll post it again for ya if you want. I wish I could get cold hard cash for the work I do so I could be "economically profitable" in my profession.


lead, if indeed you do post the article, please post it in its entirity as well as the date in which the article was written. The topic was the difference in ag policies and situations between the Canadian producers and those in the US. So please do repost the ENTIRE article so people can read for themselves what you are claiming.


----------



## swift

Plainsman here is an article I came across today that might interest you. I assume this must be fiction because we have been told over and over it could never happen.

Drone pilot finds "river of blood" outside Dallas meatpacking plant

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/dr ... 50010.html

Article is dated 1-24-2012


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Plainsman here is an article I came across today that might interest you. I assume this must be fiction because we have been told over and over it could never happen.
> 
> Drone pilot finds "river of blood" outside Dallas meatpacking plant
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/dr ... 50010.html
> 
> Article is dated 1-24-2012


swift, this is a pretty specific calim you are making that is underlined above, or is it merely an "opinion"? :wink:  If you would please, show where anyone has ever claimed violations of regulatory law will not or do not occur.

Spent, what is your "opinion" on swifts comments?

Are they indeed a specific claim one can expect to have substantiated even on a site like this?

Or are they merely an"opinion" that is imune on Nodak Outdoors from having to have any factual basis?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Plainsman here is an article I came across today that might interest you. I assume this must be fiction because we have been told over and over it could never happen.
> 
> Drone pilot finds "river of blood" outside Dallas meatpacking plant
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/dr ... 50010.html
> 
> Article is dated 1-24-2012


Now how is this related to the topic of this thread????   Isn't 5 other threads talking about the NDFB measure and regultions enough???

Perhaps a "swift" chastizement from the site "super" modertor will keep the discussion on track and save the integrity of the thread! :wink:

Hey I think it's been done before!


----------



## swift

Hey GST, I started the thread. And Nobody asked for your input. So go pound sand, I will derail my own thread if I want to. This is addressed to Plainsman but I can see how the super rancher that knows all would misconstrue that to include himself too.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Hey GST, I started the thread. And Nobody asked for your input. So go pound sand, I will derail my own thread if I want to. This is addressed to Plainsman but I can see how the super rancher that knows all would misconstrue that to include himself too.


 Re: What's right with the NDFB intiated amendment?
by swift » Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:28 am

_I am not asking for bashing of this bill. I'm asking what is right about this bill. The FACT is you cannot add anything positive to any topic you decide to expound upon.

Here is your chance GST. WOW us with the how's and why's this amendment is needed and the how's and why's it will work.

I hope everyone will refrain from bashing on this thread. There are plenty others out there to bash on._

Apparently this thread is now one of them!!


----------



## swift

Hey GST where is the bashing or the mention of the Amendment? It's not there so take your guilty feelings and figure a positive answer to what is right with the amendment and post it on the appropriate thread and quit changing the subject on this one. Thank you.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Hey GST, I started the thread. And Nobody asked for your input.





6162rk said:


> this question is for gst.


Actually within the first page of your thread Somebody "asked for my input"!! :wink:


----------



## swift

Not on this article they didn't... If I get permission to hunt your land this weekend does it go for the whole year? You should speak when spoken to since you never have an original thought to start a topic.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Hey GST where is the bashing or the mention of the Amendment? It's not there so take your guilty feelings and figure a positive answer to what is right with the amendment and post it on the appropriate thread and quit changing the subject on this one. Thank you.


Swift, just having a little "entertainment" so unwad your panties and get back to bashing agriculture!! 

I'm sure "Nobody" thinks your claim was in reference to the NDFB measure and discussion!  :roll: 

Can we expect a substantiation of your "claim" or is it merely an "opinion"?



swift said:


> I assume this must be fiction because we have been told over and over it could never happen.


This site is so confusing with what constitutes taking a thread off topic or not, what is an opinion or factual claim, what you are asked a question on what you are not, what is juvenile personal bashing what is not, it is almost too much to take it all in! 

So relax swift, hey aren't you supposed to be "ignoring" me anyway???  :wink:


----------



## swift

> This site is so confusing with what constitutes taking a thread off topic or not, what is an opinion or factual claim, what you are asked a question on what you are not, what is juvenile personal bashing what is not, it is almost too much to take it all in!


I'm not suprised you have been told numerous times you have a reading comprehension problem. Maybe now you can admit it.


----------



## Plainsman

Swift, sorry I just noticed your question.

I doubt it's fiction. This week-end I hunted coyote on land of a friend. It bothers me to complain about the habits of friends, but it bothers me more to duck the truth. In a deep valley with many springs he is wintering 400 hereford/angus mix. The creek is open in places and the running water looks like coffee. It runs to the river about 1/2 mile away. Great place for protection against weather, but it sure is pumping a lot of nitrogen and crud. Nice guy too. I guess some just don't understand or take it serious. I am afraid the exaggerations on global warming, and ding bats like Al Gore destroy the credibility of real problems. It's hard to place blame because these people don't have the education to understand the problem. They hire experts to tell them, but then they don't want to believe it. I guess visions of "Georges" dancing in their head blots out reason. :wink:


----------



## gst

gst said:


> swift wrote:
> Plainsman here is an article I came across today that might interest you. I assume this must be fiction because we have been told over and over it could never happen.
> 
> Drone pilot finds "river of blood" outside Dallas meatpacking plant
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/dr ... 50010.html
> 
> Article is dated 1-24-2012
> 
> swift, this is a pretty specific calim you are making that is underlined above, or is it merely an "opinion"? If you would please, show where anyone has ever claimed violations of regulatory law will not or do not occur.


If I am "comprehending" this right as I read your statement, I beleive you are suggesting that Someone has told you regulatory violations "never" could happen?

Would that comprehension" be correct?

Canwe assume you will be substantiating this claim with statements showing where you and plainsman have been "told over and over it could never happem"?

Now if I "comprehend" what you have said of being told "over and over" there should be multiple opportunities of factual proof to substantiate your above claim. That is if indeed it is a "claim" and not merely an "opinion" to shich a factual basis is not required on this site!! Man this is confusing!


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Swift, sorry I just noticed your question.
> 
> I doubt it's fiction. This week-end I hunted coyote on land of a friend. It bothers me to complain about the habits of friends, but it bothers me more to duck the truth. In a deep valley with many springs he is wintering 400 hereford/angus mix. The creek is open in places and the running water looks like coffee. It runs to the river about 1/2 mile away. Great place for protection against weather, but it sure is pumping a lot of nitrogen and crud. Nice guy too. I guess some just don't understand or take it serious. I am afraid the exaggerations on global warming, and ding bats like Al Gore destroy the credibility of real problems. It's hard to place blame because *these people don't have the education* to understand the problem. They hire experts to tell them, but then they don't want to believe it. I guess visions of "Georges" dancing in their head blots out reason. :wink:


Then bruce, can we assume you made a call to the ND State Health Dept and EPA?? Or does the vision of hunitng coyotes on his land "dancing in your head" block out your hatred of these people you claim exhibit "greed at it's darkest"? :wink:

So do you tell your "friend" how uneducated you beleive he is when hunting on his land?? :roll:


----------



## swift

Seven posts later and you still can't figure out I don't care what your personal opinion is. I value your personal opinion as much as a two year olds. Both are very egocentric. But most two year olds grow out of that. Not likely for you.

When I want your opinion I will ask for it. Okay????


----------



## gst

swift said:



> You should speak when spoken to





swift said:


> When I want your opinion I will ask for it. Okay????


Jeesh kinda bossy aren't we swift??? Here I thought plainsamn ran this site and EVERYONE was entitled to an "opinion"! And the best part, they don't even have to be credible or factual!


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Hey GST, I started the thread. And Nobody asked for your input. So go pound sand, I will derail my own thread if I want to.





swift said:


> Hey GST where is the bashing or the mention of the Amendment? It's not there so take your guilty feelings and figure a positive answer to what is right with the amendment and post it on the appropriate thread and quit changing the subject on this one. Thank you.





swift said:


> Not on this article they didn't... If I get permission to hunt your land this weekend does it go for the whole year? You should speak when spoken to since you never have an original thought to start a topic.


Just so everyone knows here swift, are you done bashing agriculture over subsidies and now wish to move to bashing ag over regulatory issues yet once again?  It's hard to keep up with you guys!


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gst....like I asked before are you willing to get rid of subsidies even though you say that is what makes you "economically profitable" as a farmer? You said it bud and I'll post it again for ya if you want. I wish I could get cold hard cash for the work I do so I could be "economically profitable" in my profession.
> 
> 
> 
> lead, if indeed you do post the article, please post it in its entirity as well as the date in which the article was written. The topic was the difference in ag policies and situations between the Canadian producers and those in the US. So please do repost the ENTIRE article so people can read for themselves what you are claiming.
Click to expand...

It was written in 2006 and I did read the whole article. You post it if you want to. I don't want to because after reading it again It's not going to change a thing. You say, in a round about way, that the only way to be economically profitable in farming is by collecting subsidies. I'm guessing that really isn't what you meant. What you DID mean however is that you can most definetely make a nice living by farming....however, collecting those nice subsidies are just gravy on the top!

I dont' know...whatever. I could care less about the ideologies you puke on this and other sites. I realize that your's is not the norm when it comes to the normal hard working rancher/farmer. You're one of the select few that will whine about everything, never be happy, and feel entitled to everything because....well you think farmers/ranchers are akin to royalty. Stupid really.


----------



## Plainsman

gst wrote:


> Jeesh kinda bossy aren't we swift??? Here I thought plainsamn ran this site and EVERYONE was entitled to an "opinion"! And the best part, they don't even have to be credible or factual!


Bossy? It's his thread so I certainly wouldn't dump on it. Me run the site? Nope, not my site. Everyone entitled to an opinion credible or factual? Certainly. Opinions are like (fill in the blank) we all have one. Even your unsubstantiated fantasies are welcome gst. :wink:

So where were we again???????? I think this is at a point Swift should lead off in his preferred direction.


----------



## gst

quote="leadfed"]


gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gst....like I asked before are you willing to get rid of subsidies even though you say that is what makes you "economically profitable" as a farmer? You said it bud and I'll post it again for ya if you want. I wish I could get cold hard cash for the work I do so I could be "economically profitable" in my profession.
> 
> 
> 
> lead, if indeed you do post the article, please post it in its entirity as well as the date in which the article was written. The topic was the difference in ag policies and situations between the Canadian producers and those in the US. So please do repost the ENTIRE article so people can read for themselves what you are claiming.
Click to expand...

Lead ed wrote:_It was written in 2006 and I did read the whole article. You post it if you want to. I don't want to because after reading it again It's not going to change a thing. You say, in a round about way, that the only way to be economically profitable in farming is by collecting subsidies. I'm guessing that really isn't what you meant. What you DID mean however is that you can most definetely make a nice living by farming....however, collecting those nice subsidies are just gravy on the top!

I dont' know...whatever. I could care less about the ideologies you puke on this and other sites. I realize that your's is not the norm when it comes to the normal hard working rancher/farmer. You're one of the select few that will whine about everything, never be happy, and feel entitled to everything because....well you think farmers/ranchers are akin to royalty. Stupid really_.[/quote]

That didn't take long! 

What was said in a pretty direct way in the article you referenced is because the farming structure is different in Canada, more lands are enrolled in cattle production rather than farming to be "economically profitable" in Canada.



Plainsman said:


> So where were we again???????? I think this is at a point Swift should lead off in his preferred direction.


I think we all know what "direction" that is! There is an example at the end of this quote! :wink: 

Re: What's right with the NDFB intiated amendment?
by swift » Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:28 am

_I am not asking for bashing of this bill. I'm asking what is right about this bill. The FACT is you cannot add anything positive to any topic you decide to expound upon.

Here is your chance GST. WOW us with the how's and why's this amendment is needed and the how's and why's it will work.

I hope everyone will refrain from bashing on this thread. There are plenty others out there to bash on._

Apparently this is one of them! :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Even your unsubstantiated fantasies are welcome gst.


Now Bruce just so we know what "unsubstantiated fantasies" are, you mean ones such as these??

Quote}
Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am

_I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions.__ It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame.

Maybe someone wants to grow poppies. They make money off it in Afghanistan.

A fellow who lives a mile north of me had all the trees on the west side of his lot killed when the farmer sprayed with a west wind and drift came into his yard. The applicator had insurance that took care of it. If the farmer did the spraying himself under a freedom to farm constitutional amendment would he be liable? As it is now they were not liable when canola plugged culverts and took out roads a couple of years ago. At least they can't blame hunters when it happens in the spring.

I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen._

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:31 am

_As far as antibiotics some farm practices use it in their feed. It is fed every day as a preventative not to treat an infection. We often read in (American Medical Association for example) about the over use of antbiotics and how it creates super bugs. Well agriculture is the culprit here more so than people over using it on a personal basis, or doctors overprescribing. Our neighbor had 5000 turkeys and all of his feed had antibiotics already in it. That does concern me and should concern everyone.

Also, not to pick on anyone, but some farmers want to grow hemp. To date the government has not let them. I have no problem with a farmer growing hemp, but what's next poppies? Now I know that's a hyperbole, but I use it as an example. However, if they could get away with it I know farmers who would produce heroin if it was profitable. Now before anyone goes ballistic I'm not saying that's what farmers are all like. What I will say is that they are like everyone else and some will go beyond reason and most will not. How many is the question. Look at Devils Lake for example. There is a high percentage draining from the north with no concern for Devils Lake, Valley City, or Fargo. One person on here who I will not name because he edited it fast and I can't prove it said he didn't care about Fargo. He said anyone dumb enough to build on a flood plain deserves to be flooded.

I think the freedom to farm as a constitutional amendment would be an absolute disaster. There is no doubt in my mind there wold be rampant drain and tile. There would be rampant habitat destruction. There would be ag practices that took away my choice as a consumer. How about a constitutional amendment for consumers that would protect me from pesticide residues, medical residues, flooding, chemical overspray, silt damage to public waterways etc. An absolute disaster waiting to happen.

This isn't liberal vs conservative, it isn't farming vs the public, it isn't farming vs animal rights, it's simply a step back into 17th century Europe. It's an attitude of, we will do what we want, and you will eat what we give you. Your life is worth less than ours attitude.

Edit: I'm not sure what I think of geneticly modified foods. I see some countries have banned them. I do sympathise with farmers because of the way the ELCA church has attacked genetic modifications. To date I don't know of anything wrong with eating them. However, let the free market decide. I think I would eat it and guess I do, but if someone doesn't want to I see that as more their right than the right of a farmer to say you have no choice, eat it or starve_.

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm

_The only reason for this constitutional amendment is to be given the freedom from responsiblity for problem practices that threaten the environment and encroach on the lives of other people. Devils Lake flooding Valley City and Fargo could be a problem without this amendment that will allow dumping on other people with no regard. They could raise anything they want including things that are now illegal. There is nothing good in this amendment for anyone but a farmer who wants to make every penny he can with no regard for anything or anyone else_. {end quote

 :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

gst wrote:


> Now Bruce just so we know what "unsubstantiated fantasies" are, you mean ones such as these??


gst, I know that you and I both know there are a few out there that will bring this prediction to fruition. Not the average Joe farmer, perhaps not you, but they are out there. I'll bet you have some stories under your hat that would shock people.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, I know that you and I both know there are a few out there that will bring this prediction to fruition. Not the average Joe farmer, perhaps not you, but they are out there





swift said:


> I assume this must be fiction because we have been told over and over it could never happen.


Bruce despite what swift may claim, no one has ever suggested there will not be tose involved in agriculture that will not violate existing regulations. Agriculture is no different than the scientific industry or the medical profession or any other. What is the basis of discussion here is wether the laws that prevent them from doing so and hold them accountable when they do are rendered null and void. And THAT is the only way your "unsubstantiated fantasies" listed above can come true as there are any number of laws in place to prevent them.

So now that this situation in Texas at the hog processing plant has been found, do you suppose it will be allowed to continue?


----------



## swift

gst
So now that this situation in Texas at the hog processing plant has been found said:


> Nobody knows. Does Texas have a constitutional amendment for freedom to farm/ranch?


----------



## gst

Well swift, lets see if you follow thru with keeping us abreast of the results or simply "cherry pick" a story here or there to further your agenda of bashing agriculture, the orgs representing it and the thousands of producer members that make up their ranks and policies. :wink:

Say wasn't there a story about municipal waste being dumped directly into the Missouri river recently ? You guys missed posting that one for some reason. :roll: :wink:


----------



## spentwings

My thought for the day.
_"A man who digs in the same hole for angle worms,,,even though he's never found any there,,,is a man obsessed."_


----------



## Plainsman

swift said:


> gst
> So now that this situation in Texas at the hog processing plant has been found said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody knows. Does Texas have a constitutional amendment for freedom to farm/ranch?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good honest question. The other question is: will radical organizations succeed in eliminating the regulations that now control them. This amendment has problems, but the even bigger problem is this amendment combined with the other goals of the NDFB. It is a good maneuver to get a constitutional amendment first. If the regulations were removed first this amendment would not have a chance. It's the sum affect of what NDFB wants to happen. It would be a rapid decent back two centuries.
> 
> gst questioned:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you tell your "friend" how uneducated you beleive he is when hunting on his land??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, he lives 100 miles away so I don't talk to him often, but he is a humble sort of fellow who I think already knows that. I can see where it would bother the sort of guy that thinks he knows everything though. However, lets face it how many ranchers have a PhD in wetland ecology/hydrology? Other than you that is gst. :lol:
Click to expand...


----------



## swift

> Well swift, lets see if you follow thru with keeping us abreast of the results or simply "cherry pick" a story here or there to further your agenda of bashing agriculture, the orgs representing it and the thousands of producer members that make up their ranks and policies


Please substantiate this claim.



> it and the thousands of producer members that make up their ranks and policies


especially this part. Your still making extrapolations you cannot justify. Seems you are the hypocrit I always thought you to be.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> My thought for the day.
> _"A man who digs in the same hole for angle worms,,,even though he's never found any there,,,is a man obsessed."_


Yeah, it does seem plainsamn and swift are indeed "obsessed" with bashing agriculture.  Heck three other threads dedicated to "discussing" regulation in agriculture and they need yet another. :roll:  Spent you hit the nail on the head! :wink: Sad really, especially when they continue to claim how much they "support" agriculture. :-? :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst wrote:_So do you tell your "friend" how uneducated you beleive he is when hunting on his land?? _
> 
> Well, he lives 100 miles away so I don't talk to him often, but he is a humble sort of fellow who I think already knows that. I can see where it would bother the sort of guy that thinks he knows everything though. However, lets face it how many ranchers have a PhD in wetland ecology/hydrology?


So you when you do talk with him, make sure to let him know how much "more educated" than him you beleive you are simply because of your "PhD". Heck, maybe even show him the comments in these threads about his ranching operation you mention and your veiws regarding "those" "greedy" people like him on here while you are at it. :wink:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Well swift, lets see if you follow thru with keeping us abreast of the results or simply "cherry pick" a story here or there to further your agenda of bashing agriculture, the orgs representing it and the thousands of producer members that make up their ranks and policies
> 
> 
> 
> Please substantiate this claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it and the thousands of producer members that make up their ranks and policies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> especially this part. Your still making extrapolations you cannot justify. Seems you are the hypocrit I always thought you to be.
Click to expand...

 swift I will simply let your past comments in any number of threads regarding agriculture stand on their own as to substantiating the bashing agriculture and the orgs representing it.

And as far as the numbers of members, well it really is not too hard to know the NDSA, NDFB and NDFU do indeed have thousands of producer members without "extrapolating" :wink: The NDSA alone has almost 3000 producer members and all three orgs policies are developed from grassroots up thru their members.

So make sure you follow up and check in now and then and report back to us on the situation in Dallas.

And perhaps you should let spent use the big words!


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> My thought for the day.
> _"A man who digs in the same hole for angle worms,,,even though he's never found any there,,,is a man obsessed."_
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it does seem plainsamn and swift are indeed "obsessed" with bashing agriculture.  Heck three other threads dedicated to "discussing" regulation in agriculture and they need yet another. :roll:  Spent you hit the nail on the head! :wink: Sad really, especially when they continue to claim how much they "support" agriculture. :-? :wink:
Click to expand...

You gst and the other fellas can interpret anyway you want.
Stay tune for my next thought for today,,,tomorrow,,,daily,,,and as long as these profound threads continue.


----------



## Plainsman

gst it would appear you find observations about education insulting. I don't understand that because it isn't an insult or a complement it's just what it is. I wonder if you may be confusing education and intelligence. Education is easy to identify while intelligence is very hard to pin down. Often the least intelligent think they know everything. They are to stupid to know how little they know. :wink:

Now to get spot on with the subject. Why would Conrad be looking for ways to spend money when nearly everyone knows our government needs to spend less? I'm sure everyone agrees the government needs to spend less. Why then do you think he wants to spend money on agriculture? Is his reelection coming up? Na, tell me it ain't so. He isn't trying to buy votes by taking from the productive and giving it to someone else is he? No, no, that can't be.

Why are these government handouts welfare when someone else gets it, but investments when you get it?

Disclaimer: Please understand that last comment is for all of us. I thought I should explain that since some people think everything is pointed at them because they are the center of the universe. :wink:

Page 2 and counting oke:


----------



## swift

> swift I will simply let your past comments in any number of threads regarding agriculture stand on their own as to substantiating the bashing agriculture and the orgs representing it


Unsubstantiated opinions. Heck I wouldn't even need to be on this site if somebody didn't twist everything written to look like a martyr


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst it would appear you find observations about education insulting. I don't understand that because it isn't an insult or a complement it's just what it is. I wonder if you may be confusing education and intelligence. Education is easy to identify while intelligence is very hard to pin down. Often the least intelligent think they know everything. They are to stupid to know how little they know.


What I find insulting is someone simply beleiveing because they are "educated" they are more knowledgable or smarter than someone else (say perhaps a friend they take advantage of opportunities to coyote hunt on their land while calling greedy and "supid") :wink: . Often times thru out life I have found that it is the most "educated" people that have never learned how to actually think for themselves as they have been "taught" everything rather than "learning" it and as a result are far less "smart" than what they beleive themselves to be.

For example, I know people who apparently have a PhD and do not even realize that the monies this govt spends on farm programs are an "investment" in providing abundant low cost food to it's citizenry as a food security program. :wink:



Plainsman said:


> Why are these government handouts welfare when someone else gets it, but investments when you get it?


Why was the government handout you received as a Federal biologist a salary when you got it but welfare when someone else like a farmer receives it?


----------



## leadfed

gst said
What I find insulting is someone simply beleiveing because they are "educated" they are more knowledgable or smarter than someone else

You know whats worse than an educated person who thinks they are more knowledgable or smarter than someone else?....An uneducated moron like yourself who thinks he and his collegues are smart enough to run a giant corporation from here on out with no further regulation involved. Now that is "supid".


----------



## gst

Jeesh you guys this personal animousity is getting the better of your common sense. :roll:

Lead perhaps the taxpayers funding your "education" would like to think they would get a little more for their money than what you have presented on this site! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

gst let me explain a few things you have wrong beyond all shadow of doubt.

Education and intelligence are not the same thing. You are either born intelligent or you are not. Education is simply training. I know older guys who never finished school that are more intelligent than some PhD's I know. Apparently you have never read my opinion about this in the political form. I think this is about the tenth time I have explained it. Most often I explain it to those who think they are brilliant because they are educated. My theory is some guy in a mud hut in Africa may be the most intelligent person the world would ever know, but we will never know him and consider Einstein the big genius of all time.



> What I find insulting is someone simply beleiveing because they are "educated" they are more knowledgable or smarter than someone else


You see those two enlarged words in your quote. I usually have to explain these to the arrogant that don't understand because they think they are smarter.  Education does make you more knowledgeable, but it doesn't make you smarter. For example I would guess your just as smart as most people I know, but I doubt you know what _Columbretes sculptilis exeretus _or _Tropisternus lateralis nimbatus_ are. Not knowing those doesn't make you stupid, it just tells us you have no knowledge in aquatic macroinvertebrate taxonomy. Your insulted when no one has insulted you. You angry not because of what we have said, but because of your ignorance of knowledge vs intelligence.

Now can we get back to the real subject rather than your thin skin?



> Why was the government handout you received as a Federal biologist a salary when you got it but welfare when someone else like a farmer receives it?


I am happy you brought that up again. You see when you work for the government you work for the government. In other words your earning a salary while working for someone rather than yourself. Now you as a farmer getting all that money are not working for someone else. You are working for yourself. The difference is the same as someone working as a mechanic vs someone on welfare. Happy now. :wink:

Now how about getting back on subject? Why spend money when our country is going bankrupt. The only reason I can see is to buy votes from farmers. Do you have another theory?


----------



## north1

No, but I can't figure out why government officials would waste their time trying to buy our votes. There are over 285,000,000 people in the United States. Less than 1% are farmers. Perhaps its because most of these officials are large land owners. Maybe it's because the welfare system is tied to the farm bill and their trying to appease the large group of people who are on welfare. Interesting question though.


----------



## gst

plainsan, from the lack of activity in your politics forum, I doubt much of anybody has read your "explainations" there! 



Plainsman said:


> Swift, sorry I just noticed your question.
> 
> I doubt it's fiction. This week-end I hunted coyote on land of a friend. It bothers me to complain about the habits of friends, but it bothers me more to duck the truth. In a deep valley with many springs he is wintering 400 hereford/angus mix. The creek is open in places and the running water looks like coffee. It runs to the river about 1/2 mile away. Great place for protection against weather, but it sure is pumping a lot of nitrogen and crud. Nice guy too. I guess some just don't understand or take it serious. I am afraid the exaggerations on global warming, and ding bats like Al Gore destroy the credibility of real problems. It's hard to place blame because these people don't have the education to understand the problem. They hire experts to tell them, but then they don't want to believe it. I guess visions of "Georges" dancing in their head blots out reason. :wink:


Bruce, I don't know but this post comes across as if you beleive you are a little "smarter" and "understand" the "problem" better than your "greedy" friend whose hospitality you take advantage of.



Plainsman said:


> Education is simply training


Indeed it is, and you can even train a monkey to do certain things. So does this monkey then have enough training to "understand" better than your friend whose hospitality you seem more than willing to take advantag of while claiming he must simply be to "untrained" and greedy (georges) to care or know better?



Plainsman said:


> Now can we get back to the real subject rather than your thin skin?


Perhaps you should take a little closer look and see whose skin is thin enough to get their panties bunched to the point they start down the path of juvenile name calling. :wink:

You guys go ahead and turn yet another thread related to agriculture into what every other one is. It has been a long standing pattern on this site. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Now how about getting back on subject? Why spend money when our country is going bankrupt. The only reason I can see is to buy votes from farmers. Do you have another theory?





north1 said:


> No, but I can't figure out why government officials would waste their time trying to buy our votes. There are over 285,000,000 people in the United States. Less than 1% are farmers.


Indeed, 1% will ensure the landslide victory they are looking for. :roll:

plainsamn until you begin to understand the food ecurity policies of this nation you will never understand the answer to your question. And what is painfully obvious, you do not wish to understand the food security policies of this nation and what they have accomplished.

Or perhaps you simply have not been "trained" to have the ability to. :wink:

Answer one simple question, what do you think would happen to the political careers of anyone in office if the amount the average voter paid for food in this country were to double or triple? What would happen if the average voter had to stand in line to purchase limited supplies of food?

So who then's vote are these food security policies designed to buy??


----------



## gst

We call em water beetles. 

Enjoy the conversation fellas. Anyone want to lay a bet on how many more threads will be aimed at comments on this NDFB measure?


----------



## Plainsman

> We call em water beetles.


I see you can google too. I know because there are only a few people in the entire state that would recognize those names. You would not have known them from a donkey.

My friend isn't greedy. I never called him anything that you insinuate. However, that's your trick to try drive wedges, drive people apart, and like the Communist that divide countries into east and west, north and south then think you can conquer. You see gst, you still don't understand knowledge, wisdom, or intelligence. Your also bent out of shape because it's now evident you don't know everything.

Please don't complain about personal. Your the guy who starts it every time. My post about cattle and water was in direct relation to the question swift posed, and you made light of. It was also in reference to the many times you made light of cattle and water contamination. My reference to the fellow not knowing the affect was letting my friend off the hook and not calling him stupid. I like the guy. He would never do anything destructive on purpose or even knowingly. Get it now? I don't often assume, but I do assume he is intelligent.

So since your capable of googling aquatic Cleopatra perhaps you can now go google knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence. Also, look up ignorance before you get insulted again. Until you googled those species I listed you were entirely ignorant about them. I can guarantee it. I can guarantee it because I can count on my fingers the people in this state that would have recognized them, and I know those people. None of them are you. If you knew what they were the sun rises in the west. You know nest to nothing about wetland ecology, but you will argue with someone who has worked at it for 36 years. You will do that because you have not even a grip on how little you know about a vast field. People do PhD's on small segments of wetland ecology.


----------



## shaug

Spent wrote,



> spentwings wrote:
> My thought for the day.
> "A man who digs in the same hole for angle worms,,,even though he's never found any there,,,is a man obsessed."
> 
> Stay tune for my next thought for today,,,tomorrow,,,daily,,,and as long as these profound threads continue.


Spent, there wasn't really anything profound about your digging for angle worms thought.

The reason Swift and Plainsman continue to start more of these farmer bashing threads is:

"A dog always returns to its vomit."


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> So since your capable of googling aquatic Cleopatra perhaps you can now go google knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence. Also, look up ignorance before you get insulted again. Until you googled those species I listed you were entirely ignorant about them. I can guarantee it. I can guarantee it because I can count on my fingers the people in this state that would have recognized them, and I know those people. None of them are you. If you knew what they were the sun rises in the west. You know nest to nothing about wetland ecology, but you will argue with someone who has worked at it for 36 years. You will do that because you have not even a grip on how little you know about a vast field. People do PhD's on small segments of wetland ecology.


A learned man is an idler, who kills his time with study. Beware of his false knowledge: it can be more dangerous than ignorance.

Plainsman, you went to school for a few years in Bottineau North Dakota and then went to work for the United States government. USFWS and USGS. Big deal.

Plainsman, you are the James Carville of Nodak.


----------



## spentwings

_"A man who sticks his finger up an adversary's rectum hoping to understand his motivation, gets a stinky finger."_


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> _"A man who sticks his finger up an adversary's rectum hoping to understand his motivation, gets a stinky finger."_


Spent your getting a little too personal there for me, I'll simply stick to pointing out the flaws in "opinions" and the lack of credibility behind them. :wink:

And I think most on here understands the gaggle of people bashing agriculture in these threads "motivation" They have made it pretty clear in any number of posts juvenile persoal anomousity is a strong "motivator".



gst said:


> Plainsman wrote:
> Swift, sorry I just noticed your question.
> 
> I doubt it's fiction. This week-end I hunted coyote on land of a friend. It bothers me to complain about the habits of friends, but it bothers me more to duck the truth. In a deep valley with many springs he is wintering 400 hereford/angus mix. The creek is open in places and the running water looks like coffee. It runs to the river about 1/2 mile away. Great place for protection against weather, but it sure is pumping a lot of nitrogen and crud. Nice guy too. I guess some just don't understand or take it serious. I am afraid the exaggerations on global warming, and ding bats like Al Gore destroy the credibility of real problems. It's hard to place blame because these people don't have the education to understand the problem. They hire experts to tell them, but then they don't want to believe it. I guess visions of "Georges" dancing in their head blots out reason.


I don't know plainsman, it sure seems as if you think you have far more "knowledge" than your friend in this statement you made regarding your friend who is kind enough to allow you to hunt coyotes on his place. And your little quip at the end sure seems to read as if you think "georges" are more important to him than your "knowledge". Say have you sat down and told him how much more you beleive you know than him because of your PhD when you go hunting on his land? Perhaps you can simply copy and email this satement to him or better yet, copy it and hand it to him when he's doing chores next time you go hunting coyotes there. You wouldn't want to let "visions of coyotes dancing in your head" cause you to "duck the truth" now would you?



Plainsman said:


> I see you can google too. I know because there are only a few people in the entire state that would recognize those names. You would not have known them from a donkey.


You see plainsamn, that is the beauty of todays technology. Some one with a smart phone in their pocket is now just as "knowledgable" as you and your PhD if they wish to be. So when you simply make an assumption that because of your PhD you are more "knowledgable" than someone else it is simply arrogance that drives that beleif.

Even assuming someone you have never met outside an internet blog site may not "know" something is somewhat arrogant in itself.


----------



## swift

Only a couple of elite supremacists would twist concern over an admitted poorly written amendment into Ag bashing. You guys are so full of yourselves you cannot understand we all have a dog in this fight.

GST, I will try to explain this in elementary terms to you, It seems you have connected yourself to all Ag producers. Whenever somebody disagrees with you, (the person) you twist it to include all ag producers. Understand that you are a very polarizing (oops I wasn't going to use fancy words) person with a very polarizing personality. You surely cannot believe that the swipes taken at you and your "opinions" are meant for all ag producers. You type says that but surely you are more intelligent than that. Or maybe not. Maybe you will understand now that most everyone on here disagrees with you and your superiority complex. Now start speaking for yourself. And realize the heat you get is directed at you not all ag producers.

I do not expect this to mean a thing to you as you have been told this many times but continue to take heat directed at a person and an organization for publishing IMO stupid resolutions and policy to include all ag producers.

To any Ag producers I may have offended in the past I apologize, not to include His Highness Gst and the court jester Shaug.


----------



## Plainsman

> A learned man is an idler, who kills his time with study. Beware of his false knowledge: it can be more dangerous than ignorance.


I didn't know education frightened people. I don't think I have ever seen such a stupid statement. I'm going to save it and send to friends. It should be in the front of ever school room to remind people why they are there. With that attitude we would still be back in the stone age. Is that what you want to return to? Without learned man we would still be in the stone age. I'll give you a cliche to think about: better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.



> Even assuming someone you have never met outside an internet blog site may not "know" something is somewhat arrogant in itself.


Not really, I know you know next to nothing about environment because you have revealed that in your writing. You struggle with english because I never said I had a PhD. It's just like you telling people I was a sponsor of the high fence initiative the second time. It worries me you can't read the directions on the chemicals you spread around the countryside every summer.

I see you still can't grasp knowledgeable. You still think I insulted my friend. That reveals that you are a man that thinks you know everything, and that all farmers know everything. No one is questioning intelligence gst, but your extremely ignorant of environmental problems, and you don't have the background associated training to pass judgement on those things. It would be a lot like giving a cave man your smart phone. It wouldn't be such a joke if you would stick to things you know rather than your foolish accusations. You see your exibiting the very problem of no regulations. Your the best reason I can think of not to pass this amendment. You and shaug should be our poster boys.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Please don't complain about personal. Your the guy who starts it every time. My post about cattle and water was in direct relation to the question swift posed, and you made light of. It was also in reference to the many times you made light of cattle and water contamination. My reference to the fellow not knowing the affect was letting my friend off the hook and not calling him stupid. I like the guy. He would never do anything destructive on purpose or even knowingly. Get it now? I don't often assume, but I do assume he is intelligent.[/quote]
> 
> Just not "intelligent" enough to not do something "destructive" in your "opinion" right? :wink:
> 
> So Bruce if he is "intelligent" enough that he would never knowingly do anything "destructive" what is driving him doing what he is??
> 
> Would it be the visions of "georges" you mention dancing in his head? "Greed at it's darkest" perhaps??
> 
> Or perhaps although he is "intelligent" he simply does not possess your "knowledge" and therfore simply does not know any better and will continue to do these"destructive" things until you "train" him as a result of your "education".
> 
> Perhaps before you go hunting coyotes on his land next time, if you indeed do not wish to "duck the turth", you should show him this thread in which you complain about his ranching practices and imply it must be "greed" and "visions of georges dancing in his head" that is why he is carrying on in this "destructive" manner.
> 
> Now Bruce I must confess it is getting confusing once again, what is the topic of this thread? Conrad spending money, buying of votes, packing plants in Dallas, ranching practices, hunting coyotes, knowledge or intelligence, water beetles, or simply yet one more thread whoose intent is to bash the NDFB "freedom to farm" amendment? :roll:
> 
> ob·sess (b-ss, b-)
> v. ob·sessed, ob·sess·ing, ob·sess·es
> v.tr.
> To preoccupy the mind of excessively.
> v.intr.
> To have the mind excessively preoccupied with a single emotion or topic
> 
> Spent, it is sad indeed is it not? :wink:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Only a couple of elite supremacists would twist concern over an admitted poorly written amendment into Ag bashing. You guys are so full of yourselves you cannot understand we all have a dog in this fight.
> 
> GST, I will try to explain this in elementary terms to you, It seems you have connected yourself to all Ag producers. Whenever somebody disagrees with you, (the person) you twist it to include all ag producers. Understand that you are a very polarizing (oops I wasn't going to use fancy words) person with a very polarizing personality. You surely cannot believe that the swipes taken at you and your "opinions" are meant for all ag producers. You type says that but surely you are more intelligent than that. Or maybe not. Maybe you will understand now that most everyone on here disagrees with you and your superiority complex. Now start speaking for yourself. And realize the heat you get is directed at you not all ag producers.
> 
> I do not expect this to mean a thing to you as you have been told this many times but continue to take heat directed at a person and an organization for publishing IMO stupid resolutions and policy to include all ag producers.
> 
> To any Ag producers I may have offended in the past I apologize, not to include His Highness Gst and the court jester Shaug.


 Swift if I am compehending what I am reading here correctly, you must be rambling once again in regards to the claim I made that by bashing these ag orgs you are in fact bashing the thousands of producer members that make up the policies of said orgs?

What you do not seem to realize is I as one producer member do not make up these policies. All three of the ag orgs you like to bash are made up of literally thousands of producer members from which the policies the org pursues are created and passed thru grass roots structure. And as a result, when you bash these orgs in the manner you do, you are indeed bashing the thousands of producer members that create these policies.

Duck the responsibilities for the words you post if you wish, the fact remains who they are directed at.


----------



## leadfed

Gst I don't understand why you keep playing this "bash agriculture" stance? Man you sound like a dip **** when you do that. Do you think we are bashing ALL agriculture? We are bashing one poorly written measure yet you just say we are bashing the whole friggen industry in order to try to make us look bad. Do we have a right to question a measure and be opponents of it?....we sure as hell do.

What you will do now is say, "ya i don't care if you are against the measure lead but don't you think you should use facts and substantiation when against it"? Well, gabe, how in sam hell do you use facts and substantiation against a measure that NO ONE, NOT ONE PERSON, NOT YOU SHAUG OR THE ALMIGHTY HIMSELF has any clue as to what this measure is going to do? Thats the whole point. Its a terribly written, vague measure that in the end could allow you to farm/ranch like you want to with no regulation and that would NOT be good....you know it and so do I.


----------



## Plainsman

> it is sad indeed is it not?


What is sad is that we actually have people frightened of education. Do guys like you and shaug ever stop to think that it was not a high school drop out that invented that smart phone you carry. They didn't develop the chemicals you use. They didn't develop the type of airplane shaug flew out east on vacation on and returned home again safe.



> A learned man is an idler, who kills his time with study. Beware of his false knowledge: it can be more dangerous than ignorance.[/quote]
> 
> I'm still sitting here shaking my head. I thought this mentality was in the backwoods of some backwards state. It makes me hear banjos and fear bending over to pick up anything I drop.
> 
> Plainsman did write:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to place blame because these people don't have the education to understand the problem. They hire experts to tell them, but then they don't want to believe it. I guess visions of "Georges" dancing in their head blots out reason.
Click to expand...

That was aimed at you gst, not my friend. I know the word "george's" sets you off. I guessed your age, looked at the language you use, and guessed that your generation used this slang for money as a derogatory term. Hence my using for your amusement. :wink:

A while ago you told us that members were not responsible for some of the things organizations promote. I take your word on that and will tell you I think NDFB is a radical organization that many of their good members are not aware of. I'm sure your aware of it, but them I don't think the members of NDSA know how radical you are.

Look for minute of the things revealed in this discussion. We have people frightened of education that don't want anyone to control their use of chemicals developed by people highly educated. Maybe they didn't intend that these chemicals fall into the hands of people frightened of knowledge. Shaugs statement should be a wake up call to reasonable people that we can not relinquish regulations on agriculture.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> [ob·sess (b-ss, b-)
> v. ob·sessed, ob·sess·ing, ob·sess·es
> v.tr.
> To preoccupy the mind of excessively.
> v.intr.
> To have the mind excessively preoccupied with a single emotion or topic
> 
> Spent, it is sad indeed is it not? :wink:


Actually, I think you should drink bacon flavored vodka with your breakfast eggs.


----------



## swift

> What you do not seem to realize is I as one producer member do not make up these policies. All three of the ag orgs you like to bash are made up of literally thousands of producer members from which the policies the org pursues are created and passed thru grass roots structure. And as a result, when you bash these orgs in the manner you do, you are indeed bashing the thousands of producer members that create these policies.


Here in lies the root of your idiocy on this topic. I will guarantee ( without being able to substantiate it) there has never been a unanimous vote by all of the members of NDFB. AND the majority of NDFB *may not *even be Ag producers since anyone with Nodak Mutual insurance is a member of the NDFB by default.

Your imanginary grassroots arguement is invalid so try to find another way to drive that wedge.



> All three of the ag orgs you like to bash


 I do believeI had good things to say about the NDFU and it was you GST that bashed them and called them an socialist organization. So when you bash the NDFU are you infact bashing the thousands of members of ag producers? Or are you exempt from it. BTW does the NDFU have a way of bolstering their memberships via buying their product like the NDFB does? I ask because I don't know.

It's your turn to spin.

BTW, How's the fingers doing?


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> To any Ag producers I may have offended in the past I apologize, not to include His Highness Gst and the court jester Shaug.


No need to apologize to ag producers, you should however apologize to sportsmen for behaving poorly in their name.

Plainsman said,



> I didn't know education frightened people. I don't think I have ever seen such a stupid statement. I'm going to save it and send to friends. It should be in the front of ever school room to remind people why they are there. With that attitude we would still be back in the stone age. Is that what you want to return to? Without learned man we would still be in the stone age. I'll give you a cliche to think about: better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.


I am laughing Plainsman, you sir are an idler, you spend far too much time here trying to impress with your book smartness. You do not have a lick of common sense. Mark Twain said, "he never let his schooling get in the way of his education."

Plainsman wrote,



> What is sad is that we actually have people frightened of education. Do guys like you and shaug ever stop to think that it was not a high school drop out that invented that smart phone you carry. They didn't develop the chemicals you use. They didn't develop the type of airplane shaug flew out east on vacation on and returned home again safe.


Actually I did not fly. Trains buses and automobiles. Stopped at friends and relatives, took almost two weeks. Drove to Maine, hopped skipped and jumped home. Daughter number two is there. She just pixed and flixed me a picture of herself standing close to Ron Paul who is in Maine. Plainsman, it will be fun to see how you take that Ron Paul statement and have a runaway with it. Daughter number one is still in Thailand. She learned something from Occupy Wall Street. It was a bust. Education comes in many forms.

Education is a good thing. But many of lifes lessons can not be learned from a book.

Spent wrote,



> A man who sticks his finger up an adversary's rectum hoping to understand his motivation, gets a stinky finger."


Lame


----------



## spentwings

shaug said:


> Spent wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A man who sticks his finger up an adversary's rectum hoping to understand his motivation, gets a stinky finger."
> 
> 
> 
> Lame
Click to expand...

 :withstupid:

:rollin: :rollin: But of course it is! It's meant to be!
Only a finger sniffer would comment on it. :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman

> Education is a good thing. But many of lifes lessons can not be learned from a book.


If you had read some of the things I have posted on here in the last seven or eight years you would understand that I agree with that. I don't however simply dismiss education, or would I ever say it's a hindrance. That's a statement for a high school drop out to appeal to people to put him on the same plane as the highly educated. Both of these types of people have no common sense. Being book smart does not mean you automatically have common sense, but shaug being stupid doesn't automatically give you common sense either.

I have noticed many statements that are deceptive or are proof that our public education is failing our students. Notice gst thinks I am arrogant because I think I am better than my friend. He thinks I have a Phd. The fact is I compared a PhD to my friend, because I would never compare myself as more intelligent than anyone. That would be arrogant. In the event you fellows don't understand PhD are very specialized in a narrow field. A PhD in wetland ecology would have far more knowledge about water pollution than a rancher. That's not insulting as gst took it. A rancher would have far more knowledge about grazing requirements of 100 cattle, the nutritional requirements of his calves, and the market prices of those cattle. Knowledge is not intelligence, but it requires intelligence to gain knowledge and make the most of it. Perhaps you guys should read what I write three or four times before making ludicrous statements.

You see guys I have immense respect for my friend who ranches. I respect him as a person, and further as an intelligent person, and even further as a knowledgeable person, but not in the field of wetland ecology or water quality, or water contaminants. He knows more about ranching and I know more about wetland ecology than he does, and much more than either gst or shaug can imagine.

Let me give you boys an example of your foolishness. You know how you both like to give me static about that salamander trap? As if it was a waste of taxpayer money right? Well here is the deal guys: Do you remember all the three legged frogs etc that they were finding in Minnesota? The private sector ecologists were sure it was ag chemicals. Did you realize there was a huge die off of amphibians in counties north west of Jamestown. When people found them they called Fish and Wildlife and EPA. They in turn talked with Dept of Ag. They all needed answers. Who do you think they called? Private people were sure it was ag chemicals. 
Ten years before while I was night lighting and radio marking mallard hens I noticed in the clear water that some nights salamanders were on the bottom of the pond. Some nights they were at the surface. Some nights there were suspended at one foot, two feet, or three feet. I didn't understand if the suspension depths were in response to food, light, oxygen, or pollutants. So a trap was required that would capture salamanders from the entire water column (all depths). Captures salamanders were sent to the National Health Lab. Guess what? It turned out to be an iridovirus. The farmers were not at fault. Was it a waste of my time to have their back? You guys have jumped to many conclusions that makes you look foolish. At least I hope the people reading this see the irony of it.

So can the two of you act like big boys now and stay on subject. When I talked about the coyote hunting it was an example of why we need regulations. It was an example of people not understanding the need for regulations. It was an example that should tell everyone that dropping regulations is not a good idea, nor is this amendment by the NDFB. It's to self serving at the peril of average people.

The last paragraph is discussion you should follow. The other part of this post is in defense of your constant attacks. Kill the messenger mentality to get what you want. If you have not got it yet gst, I was not a sponsor for the high fence hunt initiative that went to vote. I do not have a PhD. I hope that is clear enough this time.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Gst I don't understand why you keep playing this "bash agriculture" stance? Man you sound like a dip &$#* when you do that. Do you think we are bashing ALL agriculture?


Lead go back thru swifts and lainsmans post on any numbe of ag realted threads. It doew nottake very much "education", "knowledge" or "intelligence" to take the tone and actual verbage they use to see they are intent on "bashing" agriculture, the ag orgs and the thousads of producer members they represent.

I would hope you guys don;t"hate" agriculture and your animousity is aimed towards an individual rather than a whole group, but you never can tell any more. What I think often times goes on is people simply do not undestand this countries policies on food securiy and what drives them. If you look thru out histroy to other countries that focased their spending on things other than ensuring a low cost, readily avalible safe food source for their citizens, there are any number of instances where these countries have disintegrated from within. Some where down the line someone in govt in this country decades ago decided to adopt policeis to prevent that here in this country. If you are willing to look at these programs with any degree of open mindedness you will realize that they benefit to the American consumer has been just as significant as it has to the American agriculture producer and they were in fact a food security policy as much as a fam subsidy program. And now in hind sight, you have certain ag orgs that have realized that even these govt programs have not actually benefited agiculture and it's producers as a whole as much as thought as is typical of govt involvement in most anything. And so there is a push to take these programs out of agriculture.

So I will simply let your guys own comments speak for themselves in regards to your veiws towards agriculture and the orgs representing the thousands of producer members within their ranks. :wink: Perhaps when I have a bit more time I can put together a top ten list!


----------



## Plainsman

> Lead go back thru swifts and lainsmans post on any numbe of ag realted threads. It doew nottake very much "education", "knowledge" or "intelligence" to take the tone and actual verbage they use to see they are intent on "bashing" agriculture, the ag orgs and the thousads of producer members they represent.


If I do it's only in response to your and shaug making ludicrous statements. I bare no animosity against 99% of the farmers out there. I don't trust NDFB any further than I could throw you. If that is animosity so be it. It however doesn't translate to animosity of agriculture for me. If you translate it that way tough. Your just angry that I will not kiss up to you like your NDSA buddies.

After responding to twisted language, and twisted ideas, it bothers me a lot when I look at my farmer friends in church and know how decent and honorable they are. In my mind chewing on you guys sometimes makes me feel like I am letting them down. However, I am able to separate the two things which lets me feel like I still support agriculture while not accepting the radical agendas you guys want. I simply have to remind myself many times so shaug (a NDFB representative) and gst don't make me start thinking farmers are all alike. I know better than that, but these conversations require me to remind myself often.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It's hard to place blame because these people don't have the education to understand the problem. They hire experts to tell them, but then they don't want to believe it. I guess visions of "Georges" dancing in their head blots out reason.
> 
> That was aimed at you gst, not my friend. I know the word "george's" sets you off. I guessed your age, looked at the language you use, and guessed that your generation used this slang for money as a derogatory term. Hence my using for your amusement.


Plainsamn, I have neve rbefore heard anyone of "my" generation refer to dollars as "georges"! :roll:

So in other words if you are suggesting your "friend is not doing it for the "georges" he simply must be doing it because he does ot know any better and is simply not "educated" with enough "training" to have the "knowledge" not to engage in "destructive" practices???

Then plainsman, as his friend one would think you eager to set him straight and use your apparent superior education training and knowledge to keep him from doing distructive things dispite his own "inteligence". He is lucky to have such a "smart" well educated and highly trained friend as yourself to set him straight. You are going to set him straight next time your take advantage of his hospitatlity to go coyote hunting on his land are you not?


----------



## gst

swift, before making claims regarding the policy making procedures of these grassroots ag orgs you love to hate, perhaps you need to better inform yourself to the process. I did once ivite you to our annual convention whereby policies are developed and voted on to get a better understanding, but apparently you declined. What better way to become more "knowledgable" regarding these groups and how they create and form policy other than to be there in person. Perhaps rather than "educate" yourself as to how these thigs are done you would much rather remain uninformed and make what claims you do. :roll:

So be it I guess. :wink:


----------



## gst

shaug said:


> Swift wrote,
> 
> To any Ag producers I may have offended in the past I apologize, not to include His Highness Gst and the court jester Shaug.
> 
> No need to apologize to ag producers, you should however apologize to sportsmen for behaving poorly in their name.


  touche'


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spent wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A man who sticks his finger up an adversary's rectum hoping to understand his motivation, gets a stinky finger."
> 
> 
> 
> Lame
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :withstupid:
> 
> :rollin: :rollin: But of course it is! It's meant to be!
> Only a finger sniffer would comment on it. :rollin: :rollin:
Click to expand...

 spent perhaps we had simply came to expect a bit better style of verbousity from you rather than the juvenile petty ramblings of a select gaggle on this site.

But then again, perhaps not. :roll:


----------



## gst

quote="Plainsman"]If you had read some of the things I have posted on here in the last seven or eight years you would understand that I agree with that. I don't however simply dismiss education, or would I ever say it's a hindrance. That's a statement for a high school drop out to appeal to people to put him on the same plane as the highly educated.[/quote]

We were at th ND Grazing Lands Coalition annual meeting a couple of weeks ago and listened to an older rancher named Ray Banister from Mt. speak about stewardship and grazing practices he has developed. He has won numerous acolades for this systems and practices not only on a national level but worldly as well. Someone from the sudience asked him his "opinion" on the value of "education". His simple resonse was I have yet to see an institution of higher learning "educate" someone how to think on their own. He went on to say that without the ability to think and determine on ones own what "knowledge" is useful and which is simply filling up pages of a book, little value can be taken from an education.



Plainsman said:


> For example I would guess your just as smart as most people I know, but I doubt you know what Columbretes sculptilis exeretus or Tropisternus lateralis nimbatus are. Not knowing those doesn't make you stupid, it just tells us you have no knowledge in aquatic macroinvertebrate taxonomy.





Plainsman said:


> We call em water beetles.
> 
> I see you can google too. I know because there are only a few people in the entire state that would recognize those names. You would not have known them from a donkey


 Here is a perfect example of the essence of Mr Banisters comments.

By his own admission only a handful of people in teh entire state would have known what plainsman was talking about by using his "education" and "knowledge" of Tropisternus lateralis nimbatus receiuved fromhis "training". So truly what value has this "intelligence" and "education" and "training" garnered outside of impressing an "few" selet people within this state??

Yet I I were to say the pond has an appropriate level of water beetle populations as a marker of proper wetland health, most everyone would know what was being talked about.

Education is indeed a good thing. Beleiveing ones self smarter than others because one is "highly educated" most often times is not and indeed can become a "hinderance". For some reason it is usually the most "highly educated" that do not realize this! :wink:

If no one can stand to listen to you because you arrogantly beleive yourself so much more "educated"than everyone else and continuely remind others of this fact you have had this extensive "training", what good has this "education" done you? At this point this "education" and how it has been presented has even become a "hinderance" to other less arrogant "educated" people trying to share what knowledge they have learned with other intelligent people that wish to learn.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spent perhaps we had simply came to expect a bit better style of verbousity from you rather than the juvenile petty ramblings of a select gaggle on this site.
> 
> But then again, perhaps not. :roll:


Perhaps you and shaug stuck your finger up my rectum and haven't a clue why I'm pi$$ed!
My lame thought for the day will be,,,tomorrow.

BTW gst,,,this is meant to be *"juvenile*",,, I'm just trying to fit in with you and your opponents. :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman,

This is pertinant to the discussion.

My daughter number one is in Thailand. Soon she is going to Angor Wat in Cambodia. I am sure you know about Angor Wat. It is an abandoned city. I told my daughter to especially check out the large water impoundment located toward the central part of the city and all the irragation, locks and systems that those people created. More interesting to me is why this civilization failed. What caused the city to decline and the irragation system to fall into disrepair?

William Jennings Bryan said, Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> spent perhaps we had simply came to expect a bit better style of verbousity from you rather than the juvenile petty ramblings of a select gaggle on this site.
> 
> But then again, perhaps not. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you and shaug stuck your finger up my rectum and haven't a clue why I'm pi$$ed!
> My lame thought for the day will be,,,tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Spent on this site people become so "pi$$ed" over the littlest things regarding people they have never met in person how can one keep track! :eyeroll: 

At least your brief "verbousness" is properly defined and self acknowledged.


----------



## gst

shaug said:


> William Jennings Bryan said, Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country


shaug, wasn't old Bill a member of the posse comitatus AND the NDFB??  :roll:

Perhaps he was even one of "they" on FBO that magically make posts "disappear"! 

In all seriousness, that is indeed the ideology behind this countries policies regarding agriculture. I would imagine there will still be those to argue that.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> spent perhaps we had simply came to expect a bit better style of verbousity from you rather than the juvenile petty ramblings of a select gaggle on this site.
> 
> But then again, perhaps not. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you and shaug stuck your finger up my rectum and haven't a clue why I'm pi$$ed!
> My lame thought for the day will be,,,tomorrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spent on this site people become so "pi$$ed" over the littlest things regarding people they have never met in person how can one keep track! :eyeroll:
> 
> At least your brief "verbousness" is properly defined and self acknowledged.
Click to expand...

A pretty good response gst,,,but pretty lame!


----------



## Plainsman

gst I don't think I am smart. I also am coming to the conclusion you are not smart.

I didn't bring up those beetles to impress anyone. I brought them up to show you that knowledge was different than intelligence. You didn't get it. Then you tried to make me think you possessed that knowledge, and are doing it again with this quote:


> Yet I I were to say the pond has an appropriate level of water beetle populations as a marker of proper wetland health, most everyone would know what was being talked about.


Actually I don't think very many people are interested in the type of work I did, and I would not bore them with it. That's why we publish in professional publications that you will never see. The general public is never aware of our work. For you to read it would be about as exciting as watching paint dry.

Notice my cliche a few post back? Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think your a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt? There are 60+ species of aquatic Cleopatra in North Dakota. One must be able to relate each specific species to hydro period, vegetative components and conductivity. Some species are not specific to the mentioned variables, and some are very specific in combinations of those variables. That is no measure of intelligence, but it is a measure of knowledge. My friend who ranches could go through the same training, gain the same knowledge, and perhaps if more intelligent than I am be better at it. Your still not getting the differences between knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence. Do you want to feel insulted? Or do you just want others to think you have been insulted? You have not been, unless you actually think you know everything.

See this quote:


> Beleiveing ones self smarter than others because one is "highly educated


 It means your not understanding what I said.

gst wrote:


> If no one can stand to listen to you because you arrogantly beleive yourself so much more "educated"


 Just a few posts ago I told you I was not. What do you not understand when I say it in plain English?

Lets examine your hero Ray Banister ------ if we can't stay on subject. You don't want to do that do you? :wink:



> He has won numerous acolades for this systems and practices not only on a national level but worldly as well.


He sounds like a man knowledgeable in grazing systems.



> Someone from the sudience asked him his "opinion" on the value of "education".


That man sounds like a high school drop out trying to feel better about himself by knocking others down rather than building himself up.



> His simple resonse was I have yet to see an institution of higher learning "educate" someone how to think on their own.


I agree, but evidently Ray doesn't understand college. It's purpose isn't to teach you how to think it's supposed to give knowledge to those who already know how to think.



> He went on to say that without the ability to think and determine on ones own what "knowledge" is useful and which is simply filling up pages of a book, little value can be taken from an education.


His sounds like he is jealous of those with an education. There is education one gains on their own, and their is education that you can get from a book or you can spend 300 years getting it on your own. I don't think you or I would live long enough to acquire on our own the education you can sometimes get in months. If one can not think college normally weeds them out in the first year. I have seen some brilliant people with no college, I have seen some educated fools, but statement like those made by Ray have no bearing, and only portray a man who perhaps has not received the respect he deserves and is bitter about it. It also gives no credibility to your rant. It only exposes that you despise education. I don't have any feeling one way or another about education. It is what it is. A way to gain knowledge without living 1000 years to get it on your own, and I will admit that depends on the complexity of the knowledge you want to gain.

gst you want the same respect as anyone else, but look at shaugs and your posts. Your constantly aggravated when we talk about education or knowledge and have little respect for education. I on the other hand have explained that education doesn't make one intelligent just knowledgeable. You want to talk more about personal things than the real subject. Then you blame us. I hope you don't consider it arrogant to believe one educated in wetland ecology and spending 36 years researching wetland ecology is more knowledgeable in that subject than a guy who knows how deep to plow native prairie. I would assume your more knowledgeable about plowing prairie than I am. Don't you think so? If you tell me the plow must be set at least eight inches deep I'll take your word for it because I believe your more knowledgeable about that than I am.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug and gst you constantly try to put me on "the other side" of what you consider reasonable people. I thought I would present an article on global warming that explains my position well. Since you think all scientists are quacks you should read this before becoming to comfortable with that biased and unfounded position.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop



> Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
> 
> A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.


----------



## gst

Bruce,As I said earlier, I learn something new every day (despite the time I spend on here  ). And indeed I understand the difference between "knowledge", "intelligence" "education" "training" and the ability to think and common sense. I also understand that without the ability to think and a littkecommon sense, no amount of training,education, knowledge and intelligence does one any amount of good.

You do not seem to understand if you can not "intelligently" communicate what you and your peers have learned in "knowledge" thru your "training" because you present it in such a arrogant and codescending manner to the people that will most directly use what you have educated yourself with that they do not wish to hear it, what good is all the education in the world?

In plain simple words, if you have "knowledge" about wetland ecosystems, et... and you relay it to the people most directly tied to the use of them by calling them "greedy", elitist lords of the land, welfare cases, for sale minorities, ect.....what value is all your "training" and "education" if it is not put to practical use? Only so many people wll read scientific study reports, as they say it is where the "rubber meets the road" that matters.

It one was truly "knowledgable" and had a useful degree of intellect, one would realize this. But from the never ending supply of posts you provide slamming the very people your "knowledge" could best be directed to, it is clear you simply either are not able to understand that or are simply to arrogant to care.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> His sounds like he is jealous of those with an education.


Right here is an example of the arrogance I am talking about. You are making assumptions about a man you have never met. How do you know he has not had one of the most enriching and encompassing "educations" avalible in the country? Simply because he does not conform to YOUR ideals of the importance of being "highly educated" you beleive he is jealous of those that are, perhpas like yourself.

THAT my friend is the epitomy of arrogance.


----------



## Plainsman

> Bruce,As I said earlier, I learn something new every day (despite the time I spend on here ). And indeed I understand the difference between "knowledge", "intelligence" "education" "training" and the ability to think and common sense. I also understand that without the ability to think and a littkecommon sense, no amount of training,education, knowledge and intelligence does one any amount of good.


 I have expressed many times that I agree with that so why do you want to continue to debate when we agree? To me it looks like you just want to fight at any cost. I also wonder why every time I try to be more civil you tell me I am back peddling. I'm not back peddling, I just get tired of having to be so abrasive to keep you from saying I am back peddling.



> You do not seem to understand if you can not "intelligently" communicate what you and your peers have learned in "knowledge" thru your "training" because you present it in such a arrogant and codescending manner to the people that will most directly use what you have educated yourself with that they do not wish to hear it, what good is all the education in the world?


It's not the way I want to present it, but unless I do it that way you don't pay attention. It's statements like Shaugs that require it be pointed out the way I do. You know the old fight fire with fire cliche. I would like to be more civil if you would allow it without a smart comment.



> In plain simple words, if you have "knowledge" about wetland ecosystems, et... and you relay it to the people most directly tied to the use of them by calling them "greedy", elitist lords of the land, welfare cases, for sale minorities, ect.


My attitude wasn't that bad until dealing with you. Lately after talking with farmer friends I was able to get my mind back to my more original position of ------ only a few are that way, and the majority are just people like all the rest of us. Your attitude shaped my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong, but you come off as if I should kiss up to you. I don't do that. I see people as equal and any time someone wants their tush kissed then can look for someone else. I don't think I am any better than anyone else, but when people think they are better it gives me a huge pain in the rear.



> Plainsman wrote:His sounds like he is jealous of those with an education.
> 
> Right here is an example of the arrogance I am talking about. You are making assumptions about a man you have never met. How do you know he has not had one of the most enriching and encompassing "educations" avalible in the country? Simply because he does not conform to YOUR ideals of the importance of being "highly educated" you beleive he is jealous of those that are, perhpas like yourself.
> 
> THAT my friend is the epitomy of arrogance.


Why would anyone have brought up education? Only a few scenarios answer that question. He hates educated people, or he is jealous of educated people, or ?????? Who knows for sure, but for some reason education bothered him. There was no good reason to ask the question. Evidently this Ray fellow don't like anyone with an education either. I would guess Ray was a very intelligent man, had good knowledge of grazing systems, but someone didn't give him the respect he deserves so he is bitter also. No arrogance intended only an observation of human behavior. You wanted to show how an educated man was also intelligent. Your preaching to the choir. Predjudice works both ways you know. People with education think people without are stupid, and people without think people who have an education are stupid. I think both are stupid when they think like that.

This isn't NDSA where your a hot shot and can insult people without getting a little grief back. I'll listen to you when it comes to things within your expertise, but when you don't think I know what I am talking about you can bet I will present things in the same manner as you do. You notice it when I do it to you, but you really need to look in a mirror. It's good to keep you guys talking because that statement of shaugs was perhaps one of the dumbest I have heard in my 63 years. I hope people read that and understand what were up against with this amendment.

For a guy who doesn't like things personal you don't appear to be able to talk about anything else. So what does this have to do with Conrad wanting to spend money? Do you think in this time of extreme national debt that he should be looking for new ways to spend money? Here's your chance to actually be part of the real discussion. Now you can have real input, or you can continue down this personal path. If you do that I assume you have no real defense of Conrad's spending insanity.


----------



## huntin1

shaug said:


> A learned man is an idler, who kills his time with study. Beware of his false knowledge: it can be more dangerous than ignorance.


Kind of interesting that you choose to quote Shaw, who was a dedicated socialist. :roll:

huntin1


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Why would anyone have brought up education? Only a few scenarios answer that question. He hates educated people, or he is jealous of educated people, or ?????? Who knows for sure, but for some reason education bothered him. There was no good reason to ask the question. Evidently this Ray fellow don't like anyone with an education either.


Bruce, the question regarding the value of a college educaion was a result of the fact that so many of the ideologies taught in "training" thru "education" regarding rangeland management have been proven to be ineffetive and ultimately far less sustainable than what many have developed on their own thru holistic management. You have no idea of the context of th question or discussion yet you make assuptions about what someone feels towards education still. You assume this man that has forgotten more than you may possibly ever learn regarding range management is "jealous" of someone who is "highly educated". That is either arrogance of lack of intelligence.



Plainsman said:


> Lets examine your hero Ray Banister ------ if we can't stay on subject. You don't want to do that do you?





Plainsman said:


> at man sounds like a high school drop out trying to feel better about himself by knocking others down rather than building himself up





Plainsman said:


> but evidently Ray doesn't understand college





Plainsman said:


> His sounds like he is jealous of those with an education





Plainsman said:


> but statement like those made by Ray have no bearing, and only portray a man who perhaps has not received the respect he deserves and is bitter about it


plainsman, have you ever met Mr Bannister? And yet here you are making all these claims regarding him. :roll:

Arrogance.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So since your capable of googling aquatic Cleopatra perhaps you can now go google knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence. Also, look up ignorance before you get insulted again. Until you googled those species I listed you were entirely ignorant about them. I can guarantee it. I can guarantee it because I can count on my fingers the people in this state that would have recognized them, and I know those people. None of them are you. If you knew what they were the sun rises in the west. You know nest to nothing about wetland ecology, but you will argue with someone who has worked at it for 36 years. You will do that because you have not even a grip on how little you know about a vast field. People do PhD's on small segments of wetland ecology.


plainsman, this sounds like someone that has just realized someone with a smart phone in his pocket is just as "knowledgeable" as him and is offended by it and possibly jealous of this individuals bility to have the same knowledge in seconds tthat it took you years to accumulate! :wink:

Or perhaps it is simply someone that beleives he is not being given the "respect" he beleives he deserves and"portrays" a man who is "bitter" about it. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

gst, I suspect you were the guy who asked Ray the question. Untie the knot in your panties and tell us why Conrad should spend money when we are going broke in this country. Other than your the one getting it. Show us how smart you are.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> This isn't NDSA where your a hot shot and can insult people without getting a little grief back.


Beleive me Bruce in my years of involvement in the NDSA even though there have been spirited debates regarding issues, I have never once heard the juvenile name calling that goes on here at Nodak Outdoors and is condoned and encouraged by the moderator on here. :eyeroll:



Plainsman said:


> So what does this have to do with Conrad wanting to spend money?


Hey if you recall, I asked that question awhile ago before you and swift took this thread "off topic" 



Plainsman said:


> Do you think in this time of extreme national debt that he should be looking for new ways to spend money? Here's your chance to actually be part of the real discussion. Now you can have real input, or you can continue down this personal path. If you do that I assume you have no real defense of Conrad's spending insanity.


So perhaps since this country indeed is so far in debt, the billions in revenues generated from off shore oil drilling permits should be used to pay down our national debt other than what they are currently being used for. What say you about that plainsman. :wink:

Perhaps Conrad should introduce a bill to redirect all offshore oil revenues collected by the Federl govt to paying down the national debt until we acheive a balanced budget. Sounds like a fiscally responsible thing to do is it not???


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, I suspect you were the guy who asked Ray the question. Untie the knot in your panties and tell us why Conrad should spend money when we are going broke in this country. Other than your the one getting it. Show us how smart you are.


plainsamn, once again you "suspect" wrong, it was someone that actually wears panties!  . And if you like I beleive the conference was taped for posterity, you could contact anyone on the board of the ND Grazing Lands Coalition if you wish to know! :wink:

Bruce if you recall, I have on several occassions stated I support the NDFB policy of ending govt subsidies and involvement in agriculture.

So now plainsamn, do you support diverting the revenues the Federal govt receives from off shore drilling to directly pay down this "extreme" National debt rather than how they are currently being used "when we are going broke in this country"?

In one fell swoop, our operation could get far more dollars than what we have received on leadfeds website by simply signing up for a program funded by these dollars. We are not. (damn, so much for your greedy take all the money one can get theory :roll: ) So plainsmn will you do YOUR part and advocate these dollars be used to pay down the national debt you are apparently so concerned with rather than what they are currently being used for?


----------



## Plainsman

> So perhaps since this country indeed is so far in debt, the billions in revenues generated from off shore oil drilling permits should be used to pay down our national debt other than what they are currently being used for. What say you about that plainsman


Nice try, but that was another one of your diversionary tactics. If you agree there should be no subsidies we have nothing to debate. I thank you for that. I guess we will have to wait for comments from someone else since we now agree.

I hope others will forgive me, but I had a friendly question to ask and am not looking for debate on this. I would PM you , but those always go south also. You mentioned holistic grazing done by Ray. One of the biologists I worked with was working on grazing systems and looking at waterfowl nesting success in different systems. It went so well that NDSU duplicated the study at the Streeter experiment station to look at beef production. Anyway, I spent some time with the guy and had to read up on the holistic management system developed by Allan Savory. Is that the same system that Ray worked with? We often take credit for things here in America, but Allan is from Rhodesia. Well, it was called Rhodesia but I think that is gone now. A family friend was a missionary in Northern Rhodesia, but I think that is Zambia now. Anyway are we talking about the same grazing system. What did Ray do?

Sorry to take this off subject guys, I apologize. I'm just so darn curious about some of these things even though I am retired now. Thank you for your patients with me. :thumb:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> Shaug and gst you constantly try to put me on "the other side" of what you consider reasonable people.


That is because you are. You prentend to be a conservative, but I think that is a facade. You sir are in the opposite camp against conservatism. Just look at whom you idolize, who you study: Allan Savory

http://challenge.bfi.org/2010Finalist_OperationHope



> Allan Savory, Founder of Holistic Management
> 
> President and Co-Founder of The Savory Institute
> and the Africa Centre For Holistic Management
> 
> Allan Savory was born in Rhodesia, southern Africa. He pursued an early career as a research biologist and Game Ranger in the British Colonial Service of what was then Northern Rhodesia (today Zambia), and later as a farmer, game rancher, politician and international consultant, based in Southern Rhodesia (today Zimbabwe). In the 1960s, while working on the interrelated problems of increasing poverty and disappearing wildlife, he made a significant breakthrough in understanding what was causing the degradation and desertification of the world's grassland ecosystems. He went on to work, as a resource management consultant, with numerous managers, eventually on four continents, to develop sustainable solutions.
> 
> His early results in reversing land degradation in a manner that made, rather than cost, money were impressive. But, as he often states, his failures were equally impressive! Finally, in the mid 1980s the last of some key missing pieces fell into place. Since then thousands of land, livestock and wildlife managers have been able to demonstrate consistent results following the methodology he called Holistic Management.
> 
> Savory served as a Member of Parliament in the latter days of Zimbabwe's civil war and leader of the opposition to the ruling party headed by Ian Smith. Exiled in 1979, as a result of his opposition, he emigrated to the United States where he co-founded the non-profit organization Holistic Management International with his wife, Jody Butterfield. In 1992 they formed a second non-profit (social welfare) organization near Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, the Africa Centre for Holistic Management, donating a ranch that would serve as a learning site for people all over Africa. Savory and the five local Chiefs are permanent Trustees of the Africa Centre. Savory and his wife divide their time between Zimbabwe and New Mexico.


Allen Savory led the charge against Ian Smith. The communists under dictator Robert Mugabe took over. The first act of business, they shot the white farmers right off of their tractors. They took land with no compensation for white farmers and gave the property to blacks. Redistribute the wealth. When cattle and crops had been consumed and the population screamed for the government to do more they took even more land. But all that is changing. The people are now being "trained" to be good stewards of the land. Look:

http://achmonline.squarespace.com/education-training/



> Education & Training
> 
> ACHM trains trainers for NGOs. This enables us to reach many more people than if we were to engage in individual training projects. We currently provide the following at our Dimbangombe Learning Site:
> 
> Training of Community Trainers Programme for NGOs
> 
> An in-depth programme in three, 5- to 12-day sessions held over a four-month period prepares NGO staff to implement land restoration through Holistic Land & Livestock Management programmes in the communities they serve. ACHM staff provide follow-up coaching. For more information please view our flyer. If you have specific questions please feel free to contact us.


Plainsman, I do not know why we farmers and ranchers fight you and your little group so hard. I mean, look at those NGO guys in Zimbabwe, with just five months training they go out and show the farmers how to farm. They "train" them. I mean you guys could do the same thing here. Train us how to farm. Psh!!!

I think Allen Savory was a communist.


----------



## spentwings

This thread is really getting so bizarre,,,so ridiculous,,,and so hysterical :rollin: ,,,I hope it never ends.
"_Agendas and pig s%%t are but the same. The flies may be different but the smell is the same."_


----------



## Plainsman

> That is because you are. You prentend to be a conservative, but I think that is a facade. You sir are in the opposite camp against conservatism. Just look at whom you idolize, who you study: Allan Savory


You guys jump to so many conclusions with little to no evidence that it's a joke. I have to read hundreds of research papers, do you think I idolize every author? Do you idolize the author of everything you read. Did you read any of Savory's work? If you did under your thought process then you must idiolize him. Actually reading what you posted maybe the guy should be taken out and hung. However, even rotten **&^% evidently have some brains because his grazing methods made sense.



> I think Allen Savory was a communist.


I don't know, I don't have enough evidence. It sounds like he opposed the guy who was the head of Zambia, but what's he think of the guy who is in now. It's hard to say. Look at your quote a while back, it was from a far left radical socialist. Since you quoted him you evidently idolize at least that theory of his. It's the same as the communists. When ever communists take over they normally kill all the educated people. Look at the Khmer Rouge. In Cambodia they killed people who wore glasses because their reasoning was they must read and therefore they must be intelligent and must die. It's surprising you would idolize such thought. Are you a communist? :wink:

It's careless thought much like you and gst jumping to the conclusion that a salamander trap was wasted money.
Much like gst saying I was a sponsor of the high fence hunt the second year.
On and on and on without information judgements are made. Did you fellows learn that in critical thinking 101? Come on guys how can we talk seriously with all the bull droppings? I think my last questons were serious questions without insults of any kind. I said I was simply curious if the work Ray did was following Savory, but you carried it way into another realm with no evidence what so ever. Is there no way to talk about the title of this thread?

shaug, I really don't think your a communist. I do think that everyone who wants the money others have earned is a redistributionist (did I just invent a new word).


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So what does this have to do with Conrad wanting to spend money? Do you think in this time of extreme national debt that he should be looking for new ways to spend money?





Plainsman said:


> Untie the knot in your panties and tell us why Conrad should spend money when we are going broke in this country.





gst said:


> So perhaps since this country indeed is so far in debt, the billions in revenues generated from off shore oil drilling permits should be used to pay down our national debt other than what they are currently being used for. What say you about that plainsman.
> 
> Perhaps Conrad should introduce a bill to redirect all offshore oil revenues collected by the Federl govt to paying down the national debt until we acheive a balanced budget. Sounds like a fiscally responsible thing to do is it not???


plainsman, clearly you are the one that initiated the comments regarding our national debt and asked my veiw of dealing with it in regards to dollars allocated to agriculture. I answered directly in what my veiws are concerning these dollars.

You were asked directly what your veiws were concerning the dollars taken in to the Federal govt in off shore drilling revenues and how they are best spent and wether they should be redirected to pay down our "extreme" (your word) national debt rather than what they are now.

Why will you not answer that question?

It appears you are quite concerned over this country going broke, would these billions of dollars collected in offshore drilling revenues be useful in preventing this country from "going broke"?



Plainsman said:


> Here's your chance to actually be part of the real discussion. Now you can have real input, or you can continue down this personal path. If you do that I assume you have no real defense of Conrad's spending insanity.





Plainsman said:


> Nice try, but that was another one of your diversionary tactics


Indeed palinsamn, here is your cahnce to address this very serious issue. The NDFB is doing their part by advocating for these Federal dollars to be removed from the Farm Bill, I support that policy, will you join me in examining other Federal spending and redirecting those dollars to pay down our "extreme" national debt?

No "diversionary tactics" now Bruce, it is time to be a "part of the real discussion" about "spending" by this govt. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> *You guys jump to so many conclusions with little to no evidence that it's a joke*.


*Bruce, you mean like the ones below*??????? :wink:   :lol: :roll:



gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even your unsubstantiated fantasies are welcome gst.
> 
> 
> 
> Now Bruce just so we know what "unsubstantiated fantasies" are, you mean ones such as these??
> 
> Quote}
> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am
> 
> _I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions.__ It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame.
> 
> Maybe someone wants to grow poppies. They make money off it in Afghanistan.
> 
> A fellow who lives a mile north of me had all the trees on the west side of his lot killed when the farmer sprayed with a west wind and drift came into his yard. The applicator had insurance that took care of it. If the farmer did the spraying himself under a freedom to farm constitutional amendment would he be liable? As it is now they were not liable when canola plugged culverts and took out roads a couple of years ago. At least they can't blame hunters when it happens in the spring.
> 
> I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen._
> 
> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:31 am
> 
> _As far as antibiotics some farm practices use it in their feed. It is fed every day as a preventative not to treat an infection. We often read in (American Medical Association for example) about the over use of antbiotics and how it creates super bugs. Well agriculture is the culprit here more so than people over using it on a personal basis, or doctors overprescribing. Our neighbor had 5000 turkeys and all of his feed had antibiotics already in it. That does concern me and should concern everyone.
> 
> Also, not to pick on anyone, but some farmers want to grow hemp. To date the government has not let them. I have no problem with a farmer growing hemp, but what's next poppies? Now I know that's a hyperbole, but I use it as an example. However, if they could get away with it I know farmers who would produce heroin if it was profitable. Now before anyone goes ballistic I'm not saying that's what farmers are all like. What I will say is that they are like everyone else and some will go beyond reason and most will not. How many is the question. Look at Devils Lake for example. There is a high percentage draining from the north with no concern for Devils Lake, Valley City, or Fargo. One person on here who I will not name because he edited it fast and I can't prove it said he didn't care about Fargo. He said anyone dumb enough to build on a flood plain deserves to be flooded.
> 
> I think the freedom to farm as a constitutional amendment would be an absolute disaster. There is no doubt in my mind there wold be rampant drain and tile. There would be rampant habitat destruction. There would be ag practices that took away my choice as a consumer. How about a constitutional amendment for consumers that would protect me from pesticide residues, medical residues, flooding, chemical overspray, silt damage to public waterways etc. An absolute disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> This isn't liberal vs conservative, it isn't farming vs the public, it isn't farming vs animal rights, it's simply a step back into 17th century Europe. It's an attitude of, we will do what we want, and you will eat what we give you. Your life is worth less than ours attitude.
> 
> Edit: I'm not sure what I think of geneticly modified foods. I see some countries have banned them. I do sympathise with farmers because of the way the ELCA church has attacked genetic modifications. To date I don't know of anything wrong with eating them. However, let the free market decide. I think I would eat it and guess I do, but if someone doesn't want to I see that as more their right than the right of a farmer to say you have no choice, eat it or starve_.
> 
> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm
> 
> _The only reason for this constitutional amendment is to be given the freedom from responsiblity for problem practices that threaten the environment and encroach on the lives of other people. Devils Lake flooding Valley City and Fargo could be a problem without this amendment that will allow dumping on other people with no regard. They could raise anything they want including things that are now illegal. There is nothing good in this amendment for anyone but a farmer who wants to make every penny he can with no regard for anything or anyone else_. {end quote
> 
> :wink:
Click to expand...


----------



## spentwings

Plainsman said:


> That is because you are. You prentend to be a conservative, but I think that is a facade. You sir are in the opposite camp against conservatism. Just look at whom you idolize, who you study: Allan Savory
> 
> 
> 
> You guys jump to so many conclusions with little to no evidence that it's a joke.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like gst's opinion definition,,,, "unsubstantiated claims". :lol:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Is there no way to talk about the title of this thread?


Indeed there is plainsman.

What is Conrads position on the use of these Federal dollars garnered from offshore drilling for uses other than paying down our "extreme national debt".

Does he support their current use that does nothing to address the "extreme national debt" you are so rightly concerned over??

Do you support redirecting these dollars from their current uses and allocating them where they can keep this country from "going broke"?


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because you are. You prentend to be a conservative, but I think that is a facade. You sir are in the opposite camp against conservatism. Just look at whom you idolize, who you study: Allan Savory
> 
> 
> 
> You guys jump to so many conclusions with little to no evidence that it's a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds a lot like gst's opinion definition,,,, "unsubstantiated claims". :lol:
Click to expand...

spent is that merely an"opinion" or a "calim", could you "substantiate" that please? 

Hey I conceded, there is apparently no need to substantiate anything on this site, so why shouldn't shaug's "opinion" be given as much credibility as any other? :wink:

Now please if we could, lets get bak to the topic of the title of this thread, Conrad looks to spend. :wink:

Does anyone know Conrads position on the use of these billions in dollars of offshore oil revenues as they are now being spent? Bruce, what is your position on redirecting these billions of dollars to address our "extreme national debt" before this "country goes broke"?


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> Hey I conceded, there is apparently no need to substantiate anything on this site, so why shouldn't shaug's "opinion" be given as much credibility as any other? :wink:


Possibly because I was a "Great American" for opposing measure #2 and now I'm lame for opposing the NDFB initiative.
shaug is someone I wouldn't have to meet face to face,,,I know him already.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Possibly because I was a "Great American" for opposing measure #2 and now I'm lame for opposing the NDFB initiative


Spent, I do not beleive anyone suggested you were "lame" for oposig the NDFB measure. If one wishes to oppose this measure based on facts and truth, certainly do. It is only being suggested to take the time to factually inform yourself rather than relying on the legal scholars here on Nodak for the reasons why you oppose it. To rely on the legal experts on this site for anything would be "lame". :wink:


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Now please if we could, lets get bak to the topic of the title of this thread, Conrad looks to spend.
> 
> Does anyone know Conrads position on the use of these billions in dollars of offshore oil revenues as they are now being spent? Bruce, what is your position on redirecting these billions of dollars to address our "extreme national debt" before this "country goes broke"?


plainsman, care to have some "real" input on Federal spending?


----------



## Plainsman

Actually gst I have not kept pace with the off shore oil drilling revenue. If you don't mind bringing us up to speed I would appreciate it. Thanks.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly because I was a "Great American" for opposing measure #2 and now I'm lame for opposing the NDFB initiative
> 
> 
> 
> Spent, I do not beleive anyone suggested you were "lame" for oposig the NDFB measure. If one wishes to oppose this measure based on facts and truth, certainly do. It is only being suggested to take the time to factually inform yourself rather than relying on the legal scholars here on Nodak for the reasons why you oppose it. To rely on the legal experts on this site for anything would be "lame". :wink:
Click to expand...

Your condescension makes me smile :lol: . There ain't no facts or truth concerning this measure.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Actually gst I have not kept pace with the off shore oil drilling revenue. If you don't mind bringing us up to speed I would appreciate it. Thanks.


Plainsman, as you seem not to appreciate the efforts I put forth inproviding links or accept them as "fact", perhaps you should invest the time to explore this yourself.

I will tell you these funds can be used by various govt agencies such as the USFWS for things such as perpetual easements. :wink:

Or even baseball diamonds. 

You know google is an amazing tool to gain "knowledge" about things some spend years devoting their education to, (or even how many taxpayer dollars are spent for certain things) I'm sure it would have something on these funds for you to explore and "educate" yourself with as well. I mean if I can learn things only handful of people here in ND know in about 15 seonds why think of what you could learn as well! :wink:

Perhaps if this "extreme national debt" gets large enough that even with the GDP this country produces we can not maintain and service this debt, Federal lands can than be used as collateral to continue borrowing. Good thing we have the funds now to spend on aquireing more lands to perhaps secure as collateral for our national debt.

Some might think it more responsible to spend these dollars to reduce this "extreme national debt", but hey that is probably just more "radical" ideas.

What say you plainsman, should we be using these monies to reduce our debt, or simply allow the govt to continue to spend them thru various agencies? I mean if we are going to examine and cut the dollars allocated towards this nations food security programs over the decades to help balance the budget, certainly other programs should be examined as well right? As you have alluded to in the past, perhaps we all are going to have to tighten our belts in the future. Ag orgs like NDFB are doing their part with policies to reduce govt spending in agriculture, so what are you as a the voice for sportsmen on this site willing to give up in govt spending that benefits you plainsman?


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Your condescension makes me smile . There ain't no facts or truth concerning this measure.


So then are you saying the caims made by plainsamn and others as to what this measure will do are neither fact nor truth?

In case you have forgotten, here are the top ones that started this whole debate. :wink:

Quote}
Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am

_I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions.__ It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame.

Maybe someone wants to grow poppies. They make money off it in Afghanistan.

A fellow who lives a mile north of me had all the trees on the west side of his lot killed when the farmer sprayed with a west wind and drift came into his yard. The applicator had insurance that took care of it. If the farmer did the spraying himself under a freedom to farm constitutional amendment would he be liable? As it is now they were not liable when canola plugged culverts and took out roads a couple of years ago. At least they can't blame hunters when it happens in the spring.

I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen._

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:31 am

_As far as antibiotics some farm practices use it in their feed. It is fed every day as a preventative not to treat an infection. We often read in (American Medical Association for example) about the over use of antbiotics and how it creates super bugs. Well agriculture is the culprit here more so than people over using it on a personal basis, or doctors overprescribing. Our neighbor had 5000 turkeys and all of his feed had antibiotics already in it. That does concern me and should concern everyone.

Also, not to pick on anyone, but some farmers want to grow hemp. To date the government has not let them. I have no problem with a farmer growing hemp, but what's next poppies? Now I know that's a hyperbole, but I use it as an example. However, if they could get away with it I know farmers who would produce heroin if it was profitable. Now before anyone goes ballistic I'm not saying that's what farmers are all like. What I will say is that they are like everyone else and some will go beyond reason and most will not. How many is the question. Look at Devils Lake for example. There is a high percentage draining from the north with no concern for Devils Lake, Valley City, or Fargo. One person on here who I will not name because he edited it fast and I can't prove it said he didn't care about Fargo. He said anyone dumb enough to build on a flood plain deserves to be flooded.

I think the freedom to farm as a constitutional amendment would be an absolute disaster. There is no doubt in my mind there wold be rampant drain and tile. There would be rampant habitat destruction. There would be ag practices that took away my choice as a consumer. How about a constitutional amendment for consumers that would protect me from pesticide residues, medical residues, flooding, chemical overspray, silt damage to public waterways etc. An absolute disaster waiting to happen.

This isn't liberal vs conservative, it isn't farming vs the public, it isn't farming vs animal rights, it's simply a step back into 17th century Europe. It's an attitude of, we will do what we want, and you will eat what we give you. Your life is worth less than ours attitude.

Edit: I'm not sure what I think of geneticly modified foods. I see some countries have banned them. I do sympathise with farmers because of the way the ELCA church has attacked genetic modifications. To date I don't know of anything wrong with eating them. However, let the free market decide. I think I would eat it and guess I do, but if someone doesn't want to I see that as more their right than the right of a farmer to say you have no choice, eat it or starve_.

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm

_The only reason for this constitutional amendment is to be given the freedom from responsiblity for problem practices that threaten the environment and encroach on the lives of other people. Devils Lake flooding Valley City and Fargo could be a problem without this amendment that will allow dumping on other people with no regard. They could raise anything they want including things that are now illegal. There is nothing good in this amendment for anyone but a farmer who wants to make every penny he can with no regard for anything or anyone else_. {end quote

:


----------



## Plainsman

> What say you plainsman


 You have been watching Oreilly to much. :wink:

Yes, I think everyone will have to cut. My retirement is taking a hit and I'm not going to complain. As much as I would like more land to hunt this is a poor time to purchase it. If your looking for an argument you will need to try someone else. :wink:

As to the whine above this is from those posts: Now I know that's a hyperbole

Sometimes it takes hyperbole to get the attention of people.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Your condescension makes me smile :lol: . There ain't no facts or truth concerning this measure.


 Spent, not to chastize you, but thetopic of this thread is "Conrad looks to spend" and the apparent discord over the spending of Federal monies on certain programs. So if you would, please stay on topic and allow plainsman to address the Fedral spending of dollars collected from oil revenues that could be used to pay down our "extreme national debt" and what sacrafices he as a sportsman will be willing to endure to do so. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> What say you plainsman
> 
> 
> 
> You have been watching Oreilly to much. :wink:
> 
> Yes, I think everyone will have to cut. My retirement is taking a hit and I'm not going to complain. As much as I would like more land to hunt this is a poor time to purchase it. If your looking for an argument you will need to try someone else. :wink:
Click to expand...

 plainsamn you wouldn;t be trying a "diversionary tactic" so you do not have to address what you as a representative of sportemen will be willing to cut are you? I mean there have been literally illions of dollars collected since 1965 in off shore oil revenues that could have gone to ensuring we maintained a balanced budget. And now that we are in a time of "extreme national debt" what ar these dollars being spent on? What are you as a sportsman willing to cut?

We all know by now the position one ag org has taken regarding the Federal monies allocated towards agriculture, what say you as a sportsman?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> As to the whine above this is from those posts: Now I know that's a hyperbole
> 
> Sometimes it takes hyperbole to get the attention of people.


hy·per·bo·le
   [hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA

noun Rhetoric . 
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as "to wait an eternity."

So Bruce, for the record, are you now admitting the posts above you made back in august regarding the NDFB measure merely "hyperbole" and as spent said not fact or truth? 

Finally a credible statement regarding your comments on this measure and what it will do! :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You have been watching Oreilly to much


plainsamn, don;t you like Oreilly?

Perhaps he is too conservative for you!


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your condescension makes me smile :lol: . There ain't no facts or truth concerning this measure.
> 
> 
> 
> Spent, not to chastize you:
Click to expand...

Not to worry,,,you and plains couldn't if you tired. shaug on the other hand...can lick my boots.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been watching Oreilly to much
> 
> 
> 
> plainsamn, don;t you like Oreilly?
> 
> Perhaps he is too conservative for you!
Click to expand...

He is to liberal for me.

Don't you guys ever read the political form. I'm perhaps crapping in my own nest here, but by now you should know we agee on political things. If your conservative that is gst. We know shaug is a socialist. oke: :rollin:



> So Bruce, for the record, are you now admitting the posts above you made back in august regarding the NDFB measure merely "hyperbole


Good grief those are my words arn't they? I think I must have said that three times in the last month or longer. Some of it was intentional hyperbole for fun, and some wasn't. I like to watch you flip out. See, to me you do come off that we owe you so I like to oke:

Say gst, if I told you the name of the guy who ownes the land my friends pasture is at you wouldn't call and get me booted would you. :rollin:

I can't talk anymore. A matter more important than life and death has come up. I watched five coyotes bed this morning by my friends farm, and it just started snowing and the wind went down. See ya.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Good grief those are my words arn't they? I think I must have said that three times in the last month or longer. Some of it was intentional hyperbole for fun, and some wasn't. I like to watch you flip out. See, to me you do come off that we owe you so I like to


Bruce, you guys don;t "owe" me a thing any more than I "owe" you anything. Other than perhaps telling the truth regarding what one does for a living. :wink:

So than plainsman were the following claims truth and fact? Or merely "hyperbole"?

_Maybe someone wants to grow poppies. They make money off it in Afghanistan. _

_I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen._

_There would be rampant habitat destruction. There would be ag practices that took away my choice as a consumer. How about a constitutional amendment for consumers that would protect me from pesticide residues, medical residues, flooding, chemical overspray, silt damage to public waterways etc. An absolute disaster waiting to happen._

_The only reason for this constitutional amendment is to be given the freedom from responsiblity for problem practices that threaten the environment and encroach on the lives of other people._

_They could raise anything they want including things that are now illegal._

Now please realize I left out what you identified as "hyperbole" when making the claim, so what here is truth and fact and what is merely "hyperbole" or "obvious and intentional exageration" ?


----------



## spentwings

plains,,,I think you should man up,,,and ban me and gst right now,,,and then the peripherals.
After that,,, ban yourself for allowing this BS to continue.
Let's get real,,,this is your and gst's fix for the day.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Say gst, if I told you the name of the guy who ownes the land my friends pasture is at you wouldn't call and get me booted would you.


No plainsamn, I will simply leave it to you not to "dodge the truth" and tell him yourself how your "education" has made you much more "knowledgable" than him and he is engaging in "destructive" actions simply either because he does not know any better or he has "visions of georges dancing in his head" . :wink: Although you may just be better off telling him you think he is merely "greedy" like you've so often claimed before as if he is not so "educated" as you he might not pick up on the "georges" reference. oke:

Say Bruce, when you are done hunting coyotes would you mind answering the concerns over the spending of Federal dollars that were mentioned earlier?


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> plains,,,I think you should man up,,,and ban me and gst right now,,,and then the peripherals.
> After that,,, ban yourself for allowing this BS to continue.
> Let's get real,,,this is your and gst's fix for the day.


Spent, I do have to confess, on a day like this, it provides an entertaining break now and then in between home remodeling projects.

If shaug and I were "banned", who would take an opposing stance on anything on this site relating to agriculture???

Ah ha, spent, I think I am on to you!!!!! Perhaps that is your master plan, martyrdom to silence the opposition!  Genius indeed, even plainsamn would apreciate the conspiracy behind it! Then "they" here on Nodak could bash ag unencumbered with idgets or "morons" opposing them!! 

Yes sir spent you are a sneaky one!!! 

I do think however, plainsamn hasdoneabit more than "allow" this to continue! It seems as if he is neck deep in it, "hyperbole" and all! 

you do recall the definitionof "hyperbole" right??

hy·per·bo·le
   [hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA

noun Rhetoric . 
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration. :wink:


----------



## spentwings

Truly,,,looking at my dog's scrotum right now,,,I can understand your conspiracy theory.
And it also reminds me of shaug.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Truly,,,looking at my dog's scrotum right now,,,I can understand your conspiracy theory.
> And it also reminds me of shaug.


spent up till now, while being critical and occasionally sharp tongued, ( I have absolutely no problem with sharp tongued sarcasm or wit) you have refrained from the juvenile comments and name calling others choose to make towards other individuals and I actually looked forward to your comments. Too bad you could not have stayed above their level. :eyeroll:


----------



## spentwings

There's no smell worse than angle worms left in a hot sun jar.
Are you sure you want to fight with me gst?


----------



## Plainsman

gst why fight when we agree. Look for someone else. It's been good, and you even learned the definition of hyperbole. Isn't life grand? :wink:

I don't care to go back 50 posts and a month just to start and old argument over.

Anyone want to know how I did on coyotes?   oooops.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> There's no smell worse than angle worms left in a hot sun jar.
> Are you sure you want to fight with me gst?


Easy there big fella. If you actually take the time to give a little consideration to what I said, you should understand that indeed I don;t wish to "fight" with you.

Simply thought you had a little more going on than to fall into the old name calling some on here seem to think shows off their "intelligence"!



Plainsman said:


> I don't care to go back 50 posts and a month just to start and old argument over.


plainsamn, no need to rehash an old arguement, just address the one that falls under the topic of this thread and that is Federal spending at a time of "extreme national debt".

Hey I agree this country needs to reign in it's spending and get the debt under control and back to a balanced budget each year. That is why I support NDFB policies to end govt subsidies and payments to agriculture. So Bruce the question remains what are you as a voice for ND sportsmen willing to cut to do your part? I mentioned the billions of dollars that have been collected since 1965 on the revenues generated from offshore oil drilling. Several million are set to be spent here in ND over the next couple of years. So should these revenues be looked at as closely on this site as you seem to wish the Federal ag subsidies be examined? Perhaps this country would be best served redirecting these funds to paying down this "extreme national debt" rather than what they currently are being used for??? What are you willing to cut plainsamn?

Bruce, you wouldn;t be trying to create a "diversionary tactic" to not adress this issue you seem to beleive very important would you? I mean you have noted a couple of times your concerns over Federal spending in regards to these ag programs, surely you wish to examine other Federal spending as well would you not?

How about it plainsman, should we rein in the Federal run away spending in the USFWS here in ND??


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Yes, I think everyone will have to cut. .


So plainsamn the NDFB as an ag org has come out advocating the end of govt spending in agriculture. Can you name one sportsmans group that is doing their part to address this "extreme national debt" by advocating cuts to Federal dollars that benefit them ? Are you as a sportsman pushing any of these wildlife orgs to do their part?

by Plainsman » Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:51 am 
_Did anyone see the republican debates last night? Did you catch the comment from Newt about agriculture? It's a huge waste that he has tried to reform, but complemented them on the ability to protect their free government money_.

by Plainsman » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:46 pm 
_gst since NDFB wants to do away with these things I thought you would support it. If we are to remain a capitalist system we have to get away from these socialist programs. Also, we are very in debt and can not afford this anymore_

by Plainsman » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:53 pm 
_Everyone is going to have to give up some, but I knew you would want to continue with the subsidies etc. The 5% of oil money I got a kick out of saying double it because it gets so little and NDFB will use that part that says "encourage young farmers" to rob the coffer. If they want to steal hunting license money they will try to steal this fund. If they can keep their hands off it then 5% would be geat. I'm afraid it will be .005 percent for wildlife._by Plainsman » Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:50 pm
_Now to get spot on with the subject. Why would Conrad be looking for ways to spend money when nearly everyone knows our government needs to spend less? I'm sure everyone agrees the government needs to spend less. Why then do you think he wants to spend money on agriculture? Is his reelection coming up? Na, tell me it ain't so. He isn't trying to buy votes by taking from the productive and giving it to someone else is he? No, no, that can't be.

Why are these government handouts welfare when someone else gets it, but investments when you get it?_
Plainsman » Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:42 pm
_Now how about getting back on subject? Why spend money when our country is going bankrupt. The only reason I can see is to buy votes from farmers. Do you have another theory_?

Plainsman » Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:11 pm 
_ So what does this have to do with Conrad wanting to spend money? Do you think in this time of extreme national debt that he should be looking for new ways to spend money? Here's your chance to actually be part of the real discussion. Now you can have real input, or you can continue down this personal path. If you do that I assume you have no real defense of Conrad's spending insanity._

plainsman, after all these comments relating to the economic health of this country and spending for ag programs, and your claims everyone will have to do their part, please continue being a part of the real discussion and perhaps begin to look at new ways to SAVE monies and put them towards paying down this "extreme national debt" .

Now please realize I am putting "extreme national debt" in quotes as I do agree with you that that is an apt discription of a very serious problem. So what other programs beside agriculture should look at doing their part and redirecting Federal dollars they use to keep this country from going broke?

So Bruce as a farmer, I am more than willing to give up all those Federal dollars spent on agriculture if they are cut across the board for all involved in agriculture. What are you as a sportsman willing to give up and cut? Please recall your statement from the beginning of this post.


----------



## Plainsman

You want me to address this issue as a representative of who? I don't represent anyone. That's you and shaug. Both official representatives. So you will need to find someone who represents sportsmen. Anyone?

I gave you my answer. If it isn't the one you wanted I guess your out of luck. Good evening guys.


----------



## gst

Nice "diversionary tactics" plainsamn.

Bruce you do not have to address this as a representative of anyone. I have said many times, my comment on this site are mine and mine alone unless I otherwise state. So what do you as a sportsmen beleive should be cut in the Federal dollars spent on things that benefit you? Remember it was you that said "everyone" will have to edure cuts.

Guess being part of the "real discussion" only goes so far.


----------



## indsport

Back to review the week and I see it degenerated into the usual bomb throwing by the usual suspects that completely wandered off topic. Remember the original question was about Senator Conrad's suggested changes to crop insurance? As to crop insurance, during the Republican debates this week, as well as reports coming out about the farm bill negotiations, there will be changes in the program. I suspect that farmers will be asked to pay a bigger percentage of crop insurance to balance the budget and reduce the deficit and debt. If Republicans gain control of the senate and house (likely), farmers can be sure their programs will get cut.


----------



## spentwings

Post in these threads long enough and I guess it's not surprising, at least to me, that I would degenerate to the level
I have been shamefully demonstrating lately. :wink: 
For that reason and in hopes of redemption, this will be my last post in this forum. :beer:


----------



## gst

indsport, the thread originally was about a program Conrad proposed that would supplement crop insurance, not crop insurance itself. Or in other words, more federal spending on agriculture.

The following post was the third post of the thread by the originator of the thread itself, so it appears discussing Federal spending on agriculture is not "off topic" nor is this thread limited to crop insurance. .

by swift » Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:48 pm

_Not suprised, Just interested in Shaug's perspective on it. He is all for reduction in federal spending. *The FB claims to want out of the goverment pocket book.* So I thought this would be a good place for a news release denouncing any enhancements of the farm bill. I won't hold my breath though. Intresting that ND is the largest recipient per capita of the federal farm bill. We must have a boat load of people on food stamps. Because as GST claims a very small percentage actually goes to farmers._

This ag related thread started out with "the usual bomb throwing by the ususal suspects" bashing agriculture for taking Federal dollars . One of these suspects then stated the following concerns over spending in this country. 

by Plainsman » Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:51 am 
_Did anyone see the republican debates last night? Did you catch the comment from Newt about agriculture? It's a huge waste that he has tried to reform, but complemented them on the ability to protect their free government money_.

by Plainsman » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:46 pm 
_gst since NDFB wants to do away with these things I thought you would support it. If we are to remain a capitalist system we have to get away from these socialist programs. Also, we are very in debt and can not afford this anymore_

by Plainsman » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:53 pm 
_Everyone is going to have to give up some, but I knew you would want to continue with the subsidies etc. The 5% of oil money I got a kick out of saying double it because it gets so little and NDFB will use that part that says "encourage young farmers" to rob the coffer. If they want to steal hunting license money they will try to steal this fund. If they can keep their hands off it then 5% would be geat. I'm afraid it will be .005 percent for wildlife.

by Plainsman » Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:50 pm
Now to get spot on with the subject. Why would Conrad be looking for ways to spend money when nearly everyone knows our government needs to spend less? I'm sure everyone agrees the government needs to spend less. Why then do you think he wants to spend money on agriculture? Is his reelection coming up? Na, tell me it ain't so. He isn't trying to buy votes by taking from the productive and giving it to someone else is he? No, no, that can't be.

Why are these government handouts welfare when someone else gets it, but investments when you get it?_

Plainsman » Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:42 pm
_Now how about getting back on subject? Why spend money when our country is going bankrupt. The only reason I can see is to buy votes from farmers. Do you have another theory?_

Plainsman » Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:11 pm 
_So what does this have to do with Conrad wanting to spend money? Do you think in this time of extreme national debt that he should be looking for new ways to spend money? *Here's your chance to actually be part of the real discussion.* Now you can have real input, or you can continue down this personal path. If you do that I assume you have no real defense of Conrad's spending insanity._

So indsport, given the numerous statements regarding the spending of Federal dollars and that "everyone" will need to take cuts in this time of "exreme national debt" for as plainsamn said "everyone knows we will need to spend less", the question was posed as an ag org. NDFB (the ag org. everyone on here loves to hate :wink: ) has policy in place advocating for the removal of spending of Federal dollars on agriculture. I as an ag producer support that across the board cut. What wildlife gorup is doing the same as this ag org. and what sportsmen on here are supporting and calling for cuts to do their part to balance the budget?

After all, as Bruce said, "Why spend money when our country is going bankrupt?" Everyone should do their part.

indsport would you care to comment and be "a part of the real discussion"?

plainsman how about you, care to have any "real input"?

Anyone?


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Post in these threads long enough and I guess it's not surprising, at least to me, that I would degenerate to the level
> I have been shamefully demonstrating lately. :wink:
> For that reason and in hopes of redemption, this will be my last post in this forum. :beer:


plainsamn wrote:
_Now you can have real input, or you can continue down this personal path. _

We'll see who wishes to have "real discussion" regarding the spending of Federal dollars or how quickly this "goes down the personal path".

For some reason I get the impression more people will wish to stop posting in this thread to avoid "being a part of the real discussion".


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Now to get spot on with the subject. Why would Conrad be looking for ways to spend money when nearly everyone knows our government needs to spend less? I'm sure everyone agrees the government needs to spend less. Why then do you think he wants to spend money on agriculture? Is his reelection coming up? Na, tell me it ain't so. He isn't trying to buy votes by taking from the productive and giving it to someone else is he? No, no, that can't be.
> :




http://bignews.biz/?id=890827&keys=Sena ... OpenFields

BigNews.Biz - Jul 11,2010 - (From PoliticalNews.me)
Washington - Senator Kent Conrad today applauded the Obama Administration's implementation of the senator's Open Fields program, which provides incentives to farmers and ranchers who voluntarily open their land to hunting, fishing and other wildlife-related activities.

"As a boy I loved to go fishing," Senator Conrad said. "But too often today our hunters, fishermen, and hikers find it difficult to access nature because it is on private land. Open Fields will help change that and offer another generation of America's youth the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors just like I did."

Senator Conrad's Open Fields program - which he first introduced in 2003 with Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) - directs the USDA to back existing state based programs that support landowners who volunteer to make their lands accessible for outdoor recreational uses. The federal government would help provide funding, but the states would continue to manage the programs.

Though the bipartisan initiative enjoyed broad bipartisan support, it wasn't until today - following the passage of the most recent Farm Bill Senator Conrad helped author - that the program was put into practice. Open Fields has been endorsed by a long list of sportsman's, conservation, and farming groups, ranging from the National Rifle Association to Ducks Unlimited, the National Farmers Union, and Pheasants Forever.

Nearly 100 million Americans participate in wildlife-related recreation annually, spending in excess of $100 billion each year on their outdoor activities. Outdoor recreation is worth nearly $1 billion annually in North Dakota alone, and Senator Conrad noted that Open Fields should create an opportunity to further boost the state's nature-based industries.

"This program is a win-win situation for everyone. The farmers and ranchers who voluntarily enroll their land get an incentive payment. Hunters, fishermen and birders find more land available to enjoy the outdoors, and our rural communities get a tremendous economic shot in the arm," Senator Conrad said.

Perhaps this would be a starting point to drop Federal spending on agriculture? :wink:

What say you plainsman?


----------



## leadfed

Holy crap gabe....for talking crap about it all the time, you spend A LOT of time on this site.haha


----------



## shaug

indsport wrote,



> Back to review the week and I see it degenerated into the usual bomb throwing by the usual suspects that completely wandered off topic. Remember the original question was about Senator Conrad's suggested changes to crop insurance? As to crop insurance, during the Republican debates this week, as well as reports coming out about the farm bill negotiations, there will be changes in the program. I suspect that farmers will be asked to pay a bigger percentage of crop insurance to balance the budget and reduce the deficit and debt.


Swift started this thread with Conrad wants to spend. Ag is going to take a federal budget cut of 23 billion. The question becomes what to cut and what to keep? There were public forums held awhile back sponsored by Farmers Union. Keep in mind I said Farmer Union. I attended one where the panel was made up of spokes persons from Conrad, Hoeven and Bergs offices. The panel then takes the concerns of the consituency back to the Congressmen. Then those Congressmen take it from there. The people attending those meetings agreed that the fed is broke and we all must do our part to cut. But crop insurance was one they felt needed something done. Really bad things happen out there dealt by mother nature. One was when the flooding was bad last spring and the Army Corp of Engineers chose to blow up levees to save towns. Those farmers whos crops went under saw their crop insurance sky rocket times five.

Hey indsport, does your last name begin with a letter "T" ???


----------



## gst

http://www.ducks.org/news-media/sportsm ... -a-reality

WASHINGTON, September 9, 2011-Ducks Unlimited is pleased with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's recent decision to formally establish the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area. This area is part of an initiative to protect almost 2 million acres of critical wetlands and grasslands in North and South Dakota. However, if this jewel for America's wildlife is to be protected, sportsmen will need to tell Congress of its significance.

"Ducks Unlimited has been supporting the process of establishing the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area for some time and we are thrilled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is moving forward with this project," DU CEO Dale Hall said. "However, to move forward with this initiative and ensure this area is conserved, *we must now focus on securing the proper funding*."

The purpose of the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area is to provide a voluntary and financially feasible way for ranchers and other private landowners to conserve native grasslands and wetlands. This program is also designed to be economically feasible for the federal government because it will be funded with dollars already dedicated to conservation through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and through the revenue generated from Federal Duck Stamp sales.

"The Prairie Pothole Region is commonly known as our nation's 'Duck Factory' because it plays a central role in sustaining strong duck populations and conserving this area is a top priority for our organization," DU Chief Conservation Officer Paul Schmidt said. "To demonstrate our support, Ducks Unlimited has committed $50 million over ten years to purchase easements under this program. Now is the time to let our nation's leaders know that sportsmen support this program and are willing to do their part to make it happen."

Upon approval, this project is expected to conserve up to 240,000 acres of wetlands and 1,700,000 acres of grasslands in the Dakotas through conservation easements. Under the proposal, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will seek to acquire voluntary easements from willing sellers on approximately 2 million acres of native prairie habitat to benefit wildlife and support traditional economic activities, specifically livestock production.

Ducks Unlimited and conservation partners are not the only ones that have advocated for this program. There is currently a waiting list of over 800 landowners in North and South Dakota who have expressed interest in wetlands and grasslands easements. "Easements are a popular conservation tool because of the benefits they provide landowners," said DU Director of Conservation Programs for North and South Dakota, Dr. Jim Ringelman. "Land enrolled in this program can still be used as working farmland for grazing and haying, making it an economically-sound investment for many ranchers."

Ducks Unlimited is the world's largest nonprofit organization dedicated to conserving North America's continually disappearing waterfowl habitats. Established in 1937, Ducks Unlimited has conserved more than 12 million acres, thanks to contributions from more than a million supporters across the continent. Guided by science and dedicated to program efficiency, DU works toward the vision of wetlands sufficient to fill the skies with waterfowl today, tomorrow and forever. Visit the DU website, http://www.ducks.org, for more information.

Perhaps here are millions of Federal dollars that could be spent keeping our "country from going broke" as well. How many Federal dollars are going into this program?? Considering our "extreme national debt" perhaps this program could be postponed and these dollars diverted to paying down our nation debt instead?

Care to be a "part of the real discussion" and give your position on the use of these Federal dollars plainsman? It is the Land and Water Conservation Fund that uses those offshore drilling reveunues mentioned earlier.

So when someone is "going broke" should they just keep spending in the manner they always have or should they use dollars avalible but spent otherwise to pay off the debt they incur first?


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Holy crap gabe....for talking crap about it all the time, you spend A LOT of time on this site.haha


Perhaps if this litle gaggle of people would not spend so much time bashing agriculture, the ag orgs and their thousands of producer members I could take a break from being on here!!! 

led, "Here's your chance to actually be part of the real discussion. Now you can have real input, or you can continue down this personal path. If you do that I assume you have no real defense"

lead, it seems you were concerned with where Federal dollars were being spent earlier, so much so you posted examples of who received them and how much!  :wink:

Perhpas you would care to comment on wether the examples of Federal dollars being spent on programs such as those two shared should be examined in this time of "extreme national debt".

Here is an opportunity to show the tax payers that are funding your education they are getting more for their money than the juvenile name calling they have witnessed thus far. If not, perhaps those dollars as well would be better off spent paying down our national debt. :wink:


----------



## shaug

GST wrote,



> Does anyone know Conrads position on the use of these billions in dollars of offshore oil revenues as they are now being spent? Bruce, what is your position on redirecting these billions of dollars to address our "extreme national debt" before this "country goes broke"?


Plainsman wrote,



> Actually gst I have not kept pace with the off shore oil drilling revenue. If you don't mind bringing us up to speed I would appreciate it. Thanks.


Plainsman, that is a lie. You do know.

GST wrote,



> plainsamn you wouldn;t be trying a "diversionary tactic" so you do not have to address what you as a representative of sportemen will be willing to cut are you? I mean there have been literally illions of dollars collected since 1965 in off shore oil revenues that could have gone to ensuring we maintained a balanced budget. And now that we are in a time of "extreme national debt" what ar these dollars being spent on? What are you as a sportsman willing to cut?


In the year 2000 Don Young of Alaska (special member of Ducks Unlimited) introduced the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. It would have taken over three billion dollars per year times 15 years (45 billion) from the United States General Treasurey. This money is derived from oil and gas leases off of the Atlantic Outer Continental Shell. It would have fully funded the Land Water Conservation Fund to the tune of 900 million annually to buy private land (from willing sellers to willing buyers wink wink) and turn it into public property. Question is, how much of your state should the federal government control? 50% or 80%??? This money would have been diverted away from the US General Treasurey and now our government is borrowing 40 cents on every dollar spent from China to fund social security road maintianance etc. CARA failed in 2000.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> You want me to address this issue as a representative of who? I don't represent anyone. That's you and shaug. Both official representatives. So you will need to find someone who represents sportsmen. Anyone?
> 
> I gave you my answer. If it isn't the one you wanted I guess your out of luck. Good evening guys.


Nice disclaimer Plainsman, you don't represent anyone. So much BS.

You champion all the causes put forth by the wildlife society, the wildlife federation, DU or whatever government advocacy group.
Those were the people who sponsored Don Youngs Conservation and Reinvestment Act. It's always about saving the wildlife or is it? Even though CARA failed back in 2000 these nonprofits weren't done trying to get some of those taxpayer millions. So they reinvent themselves. Change the name but not the rip off.

CARA
CARA LITE 
American Wildlife Enhancement Act
Get Outdoors Act

Hey Plainsman, remember the Get outdoors act back in 2002? Our open space is shrinking and our waist lines are growing. These 501(c)3 people didn't care a wit about getting people outdoors, it was about the money. Follow the money. Sportsmen do not support this kind of nonsense but you plainsman, try to include them everytime you say "we" or "us" when your talking. Here is the link. Funny Stuff.

http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom7.htm



> What does make sense is that Front and all of the usual land-grabbing suspects were on hand to give support to the Get Outdoors Act (GO). Groups which never cared a whit about obesity before are now backing the bill. They include The Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, the Izaak Walton League of America, the National Parks and Conservation Association, National Wildlife Federation, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and several others who have been the leaders in pushing for federal land grabs. Now suddenly they are backing a bill about fixing obesity.


----------



## gst

shaug, it will be interesting if the loudest people regarding farm subsidies bother to comment on the Federal dollars going to other things mentioned. :wink:

Perhaps they are quick to critisize others for the programs funded by Federal dollars as long as there is not a mirror close by. 

indsport, apparently you are so concerned over Federal spending you started a thread specifically aimed at it, perhaps you would care to comment on the two examples of billions of Federal dollars over a period of time being diverted from keeping this country from going broke. 

What say you plainsman? :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman wrote:
> Yes, I think everyone will have to cut. .


----------



## shaug

So why do we debate like hell on Nodak? What is with Plainsman, Swift, indsport, bad dog and several others disdain for Farm Bureau, Stockmens etc. There is a reason. Money. This country is broke. There needs to be cuts and Plainsman and his jackals are very keen at showing where in ag those cuts need to be. But when it comes to cuts in conservation they clam up. Nobody knows anything nobody heard or saw anything. Nobody represents any sportsmens organization. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Right now this same group of people is sponsoring a ND Constitutional Amendment to divert 5% of ND oil revenues away from the general treasurey into their pet projects.

http://legacy.inforum.com/pdfs/oilwater.pdf

The template is always the same. This Constitutional Amendment is not much different then Don Youngs CARA scam. On the surface it sounds so good. Who is against cleaner water or cleaner air? No one. But do not give tax dollars away. Giving money away will get us into the same predicament the fed/gov is in. Save the environment save the wildlife save us from ourselves.

Plainsman knows about off shore oil monies being diverted away, but will plead ignorance. Todays fights right here on Nodak between two opposing views are no different than ten years ago. It is very long and formal. Everything we debate is right there below.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/re ... 388_0f.htm

Rep. Helen Chenoweth said in that discussion in that weblink provided above,



> Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find after sitting through three panels and listening to the testimony, that I am baffled. I am baffled by the testimony that I hear primarily coming from the sportsmen and the arms and bullet manufacturers. I'm a little heartsick. Next week we're going to be taking on one of the biggest battles that this Congress has faced with regards to gun control and I guess I just always thought that you leave the dance with those that brought you.
> There's going to be a lot of blood spilt and I think that we need to focus on the fact that access to the back country for hunting purposes or hunting for sportsmen, unless we fight these battles together, may not occur at all. And when we hear about-in testimony, when we hear about our American heritage, I've got to stop and think that our American heritage that our founding fathers envisioned for us envisioned more than just the ability to hunt and it envisioned the ability of people to be able to make a living from the land and be able to be free and to be able to make choices about where they want to live and raise their families and not be harassed by the Federal Government. That kind of freedom and liberty really was the heritage that our founding fathers wanted to leave us.


What Rep. Chenoweth didn't know is that the sportsmen she was addressing were made up of lackeys from the Association of Fish and Wildlife who were after the CARA money. Plainsman, it is time to cut federal spending, it is time to acknowledge 
that these 501(c)3's are not sportsemns organizations as much as they are government advocacy groups. It is time to rein them in and cut their funding.

Oh and BTW, if you made it through that weblink provided congratulations.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/re ... 388_0f.htm

It is all in there, why we debate.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman wrote:
> Yes, I think everyone will have to cut. .


Shaug wrote:


> So why do we debate like hell on Nodak? What is with Plainsman, Swift, indsport, bad dog and several others disdain for Farm Bureau, Stockmens etc. There is a reason. Money. This country is broke. There needs to be cuts and Plainsman and his jackals are very keen at showing where in ag those cuts need to be. But when it comes to cuts in conservation they clam up. Nobody knows anything nobody heard or saw anything. Nobody represents any sportsmens organization. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.





> There is a reason. Money.


For some perhaps. For me the reason is arrogance. They want everyone to cut, but not them. I'll believe it when I see it.



> Plainsman wrote:
> Yes, I think everyone will have to cut. .


Shaug wrote:


> Plainsman, it is time to cut federal spending





> Plainsman wrote:
> Yes, I think everyone will have to cut. .


----------



## gst

plainsamn, so lets get a little more specific then. You guys on here like o do that regarding ag issues, why some even like to bring up weblinks that shows "specifically" how and where the monies are spent. :wink:

I gave you a very specific program title the Dakota Grasslands Initiative whereby the Federal USFWS are taking millions of dollars that could be going to pay down this "extreme national debt" this country has. Simply by an act of Congress, these monies could be redirected to help balance the budget and work towards eliminating our national debt. *So are you in agreement that these dollars should be diverted to this goal of paying down our debt rather than how theyare being spent until our national budget is balanced??*

Simply reposting


Plainsman said:


> Plainsman wrote:
> Yes, I think everyone will have to cut. .
Click to expand...

over and over is hardly "being a part of the real discussion" or having any "real input". It could be looked at as a "diversionary tactic" to keep from having to go on record of what programs you beleive should be cut. NDFB has been pretty specific in what federal revenues they beleive should be cut from agriculture.

Plainsman » Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:26 pm 
_They want everyone to cut, but not them. I'll believe it when I see it. _

If you wish us to "beleive it" what programs do you beleive should be cut? You guys are pretty good at identifying someone elses ag programs, now it is your time to look within.


----------



## shaug

That is it Plainsman. That is all you have to say. You think everyone will have to cut. That's it. Where is the name calling or fearmongering? Did you read that weblink I provided.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/re ... 388_0f.htm

Did you notice Bert Smith mister sage brush rebellion guy testified? On this web-forum in the past you had a lot to say about the sage brush rebellion. You have tried to paint a picture people like that are crazy, Gordon Kahl types, posse comitatis, to be scorned. Well........



> STATEMENT OF BERT SMITH, OGDEN, UTAH
> Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you find something to tape that on that board? It's an important map. Distinguished congressmen, I appreciate being able to say my piece here about this bill. I'm Bert Smith, president of the National Federal Land Conference, an organization designed to protect private property. Our office is located in Bountiful, Utah. My home address is a ranch in Nevada and a townhouse in Ogden, Utah and a business in Ogden, Utah, as my papers will describe.
> I'm a member of the Nevada Cattle Association and a member of the board of directors. I'm a member of the Utah Cattle Association and the New Mexico Cattle Association. I have property in all those states.
> I'm well acquainted with the public land issue, probably as well as any witness you will ever have because I'm known in my own circles, not very widely because I'm only a country bumpkin, but I'm known as Mr. Sagebrush Rebellion and I continue to fly that flag. It's an important flag to me because we stand for no net loss of the private property and Mr. Chairman, as you well know that was an important issue at one time and even Senator Hatch, wanted to pass the bill in that respect.
> 
> Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
> I have a business that is widely known as an agri-business and we do business with all of the livestock people in the west. It's not just a country store, it's a world country store because we have visitors from all over the world come there. It's quite a museum piece and we have anything you want, if we can find it and we have a big sign that says that. And another big sign that says Holy cow, what a great store. So we're not sober all the time. We make fun of ourselves and the public love it. It's a menagerie but it's not small.
> And we enjoy our ranch people and they come there to buy wholesale and retail. We do wholesale in seven states. We sell as many as 2,000 saddles a year. We're the second largest horseshoe dealer in the United States. We're the largest Wrangler jean dealer in Utah.
> To go on, I have some substantial land holdings in Nevada and Arizona and New Mexico. I am an in holder. The government surrounds me. And the reason I want this map up there is you're well acquainted that the black is federally owned. I mean Nevada is all Federal land outside of Reno and Las Vegas, a few of the bigger cities, are in holders.
> You'll notice there that the gray snake that runs across there is 40 miles wide, that represents the railroad. I mean every other section is in holding by the railroad. They're the money out there trying to push this thing through. They would love to sell some of their mountaintops that they've got as the largest land grant in the history of the world. They'd like to sell that and some of the oil companies feel the same way. In Reno there is a big influence from the oil companies on this bill.
> We're deeply disappointed in Representative Don Young and other good Republicans who would sponsor such a bill. Buy up more land to be held in the tight iron grip of the Federal Government.
> Bill H.R. 701 has so many golden threads woven into a blanket of untruths that it's misleading. This sounds like a motherhood bill and it opens the door that would let Clinton/Gore walk in or drive a truck through that door if we let that crack open. They have some real money spent on bills out there that they would like to buy up everything. This is a very dangerous door opener.


Plainsman, in his own words he doesn't seem all that crazy. These people and their organizations derailed a whole bunch of federal spending. (Federal spending that your people support.) They were the last line of defense. Maybe that is why you constantly malign them.


----------



## gst

shaug, I wouldn't hold my beath for anyone of this little gaggle of fellas on here to step up and go on record saying what wildlife or sportsmen programs should be cut even though plainsamn claims "everyone will have to cut". They like to slam agriculture every chance they get calling people greedy, hands in the taxpayers pockets, elitist lords of the land, ect... but after chastizing agriculture producers for the Federal monies spent on food security programs and policies, when an ag org advocates for the elimination of these Federal dollars they claim disbeleif and use "diversionary tactics"particularily when asked what they and the sportsmen orgs they are members of are going to do their part when "everybody has to cut".

They slam agriculture in any number of threads over Federal spending, but when asked to look in a mirror, suddenly nothing is said and they can;t seem to find anything wrong with the Federal dollars going their way even though this country is "going broke" because of our "extreme national debt".

Surprising,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, not really. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> shaug, I wouldn't hold my beath for anyone of this little gaggle of fellas on here to step up and go on record saying what wildlife or sportsmen programs should be cut even though plainsamn claims "everyone will have to cut". They like to slam agriculture every chance they get calling people greedy, hands in the taxpayers pockets, elitist lords of the land, ect... but after chastizing agriculture producers for the Federal monies spent on food security programs and policies, when an ag org advocates for the elimination of these Federal dollars they claim disbeleif and use "diversionary tactics"particularily when asked what they and the sportsmen orgs they are members of are going to do their part when "everybody has to cut".
> 
> They slam agriculture in any number of threads over Federal spending, but when asked to look in a mirror, suddenly nothing is said and they can;t seem to find anything wrong with the Federal dollars going their way even though this country is "going broke" because of our "extreme national debt".
> 
> Surprising,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, not really. :eyeroll:


Did I leave someone out?


----------



## gst

plainsamn, it is becoming clear you do not wish to become as specific now in examining wildlife and sportsmen programs funded with Federal dollars as you do regarding the federal ag spending. Why not?

You guys are here picking apart the revenues spent on Federal ag programs and critisizing the various farm orgs. Now it's time to look in the mirror. So lets here something a little more specific as a sportsman what you beleive needs to be cut. If you belong to any sportsman organizations, lets hear what you are pushing them to cut in doing your part to reduce Federal spending.

Plainsman I gave you a very specific program, the Dakota Grasslands Initiative that will spend hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few years. NONE of these Federal dollars, even thoug they could be diverted to doing so, will go directly towards paying down our "extreme national debt". So I will put it to you directly. Do you think this program and this type spending while our country is "going broke" should continue.

plainsman, it appears your cohorts are suddenly silent when something other than ag is being so closely examined as to what Federal dollars should stop flowing. It appears they have abandoned you and you are all alone in suggesting "everyone will have to cut". So it seems to have fallen on you to have some "real input" and talk specifically what programs you beleive should be cut. No more "diversionary tactics", simply engage and be a "part of the real discussion".


----------



## spentwings

I wonder if I fall into that cohort and jackal category gst. :rollin: 
I said I wouldn't post in Hot Topics again but let me give it just one more objective try.

Yeah,,,these threads are generally critical of agriculture and the NDFB.
Some with good reason,,,like opposition to the amendment initiative, and others that I would interpret as just Ag "bashing".
What makes these threads go south is *once again *lack of moderation in my opinion.

Getting back to the topic,,,let's get real! We all feed at the federal dollar trough.
Agriculture is only 0.8% of the Federal budget!
Until the big entitlement programs (the so called untouchables) are addressed,,, the debt crisis will only get worse.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Plainsman wrote:
> Yes, I think everyone will have to cut. .


Plainsman, if you truly are a conservative as you claim, then they really is only one right answer.

Politicians to not make up spending bills out of thin air. They take the needs and wants of their constituency who pressure them and then draft a bill. People and organizations get behind their pet project bill and then push. The problem with our form of democracy is that some people and their organizations have figured out they can gift themselves largesses from the general treasurey. That is when the deficit spending begins.

If wildlife and conservation groups were to go before Congress asking to deficit spend, borrowing millions from China at interest, 
how well do you think that would be received? Instead they ask to divert money away from the general treasurey from oil and gas lease monies. Conservation and wildlife are already funded. So why do they ask to deficit spend?????

Plainsman, did you read the link I provided?

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/re ... 388_0f.htm

Hearings at the capitol are very formal. It is almost hard to waid through it. But look at the sponsors who pushed it and look at the people who opposed that piece of spending.

Supporters, cheerleaders and drafters of that 45 billion dollar give away:
The Nature Conservancy
International Association of Fish and Wildlife

Plainsman, your wildlife society and wildlife federation that you advocate for are part of that Assoc. of Fish and Wildlife.

Now let's look at the people and organizations against this 45 billion dollar give away:
Blue Ribbon Coalition
American Farm Bureau
New Mexico Stockmens Association

Plainsman, The opposition stopped this 45 billion dollar give away. They were the last line of defence. Maybe that is why you hate them so much?


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy crap gabe....for talking crap about it all the time, you spend A LOT of time on this site.haha
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if this litle gaggle of people would not spend so much time bashing agriculture, the ag orgs and their thousands of producer members I could take a break from being on here!!!
> 
> led, "Here's your chance to actually be part of the real discussion. Now you can have real input, or you can continue down this personal path. If you do that I assume you have no real defense"
> 
> lead, it seems you were concerned with where Federal dollars were being spent earlier, so much so you posted examples of who received them and how much!  :wink:
> 
> Perhpas you would care to comment on wether the examples of Federal dollars being spent on programs such as those two shared should be examined in this time of "extreme national debt".
> 
> Here is an opportunity to show the tax payers that are funding your education they are getting more for their money than the juvenile name calling they have witnessed thus far. If not, perhaps those dollars as well would be better off spent paying down our national debt. :wink:
Click to expand...

Ya that damn education. I knew I shouldn't have spent 200k on it! Nope, only if I woulda had an old man to give me a bunch of land and be spoon fed a profession. Dang it anyway, some guys have all the luck. Heck you're probably still not completely off the tit as far as we know. Yet you sit there and make it look like getting an education is one of the dumber things a guy could do. ****ty grain prices and no subsidies and you would be flat on your *** old man....I'd bet on it! Just thank daddy and your gov. for allowing you to live an "economically profitable" lifestyle. Ya I might get a little coin to pay back student loans so that I will work in a rural area.....but by no means do I need it to be "economically profitable" like you. :rollin:


----------



## leadfed

By the way, I never did hear from you or not about if you got taxed on that $330K you got from the tax payers? I know I could find it out by searching or just asking someone on the street but you are probably sitting there right now so I figured it would probably be faster than google to just ask you.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Ya that damn education. I knew I shouldn't have spent 200k on it! Nope, only if I woulda had an old man to give me a bunch of land and be spoon fed a profession. Dang it anyway, some guys have all the luck. Heck you're probably still not completely off the tit as far as we know. Yet you sit there and make it look like getting an education is one of the dumber things a guy could do. ****ty grain prices and no subsidies and you would be flat on your a$$ old man....I'd bet on it! Just thank daddy and your gov. for allowing you to live an "economically profitable" lifestyle. Ya I might get a little coin to pay back student loans so that I will work in a rural area.....but by no means do I need it to be "economically profitable" like you.


Plainsman » Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:11 pm 
So what does this have to do with Conrad wanting to spend money? Do you think in this time of extreme national debt that he should be looking for new ways to spend money? Here's your chance to actually be part of the real discussion. Now you can have real input, or you can continue down this personal path. If you do that I assume you have no real defense of Conrad's spending insanity.

*lead as plainsamn says, it appears you simpy wish to "continue down this personal path" in a juvenile manner rather than be a "part of the real discussion"* :wink: :roll:

led, if you can not begin to see how juvenile your continued journey "down this personal path" makes you appear, one must question the value of the $200,000 spent on your "education". Getting an education is NOT one of the "dumber things" one can do, not learning anything as a result is. :wink:

It seems no one wishes to address Federal spending cuts when the conversation is directed their way. Funny how the same few people on this site jump on the bash ag and ag producers bandwagon when that is the focas of discussion of Federal dollars, but how quiet they get when presented another venue of discussion of cutting Federal spending. :roll:


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> I wonder if I fall into that cohort and jackal category gst. :rollin:
> I said I wouldn't post in Hot Topics again but let me give it just one more objective try.
> 
> Yeah,,,these threads are generally critical of agriculture and the NDFB.
> Some with good reason,,,like opposition to the amendment initiative, and others that I would interpret as just Ag "bashing".
> What makes these threads go south is *once again *lack of moderation in my opinion.
> 
> Getting back to the topic,,,let's get real! We all feed at the federal dollar trough.
> Agriculture is only 0.8% of the Federal budget!
> Until the big entitlement programs (the so called untouchables) are addressed,,, the debt crisis will only get worse.


 Ah, now there is the style conversation that is enjoyable to engage with and is actually even abit "objective" ! Welcome back from the "persoanl path" that leads to "no defense" spent.

 0.8%, does that also include all the food assistance programs??

It will be interesting if anyone that engages in this "Ag bashing" can provide a "defense" for their attacking of spending of Federal dollars on agricutlture when asked to examine what is spent on wildlife and sportsmen programs. :wink:


----------



## gst

spent, you're pretty good with words, I'm looking for a word that describes someone critisizing others for the Federal spending and programs that benefit others in a time of "extreme national debt" but yet will not address and even have defended the Federal spending and programs that benefit them in this very same time of "extreme national debt"?

Hmmmm???? Any ideas? :-?


----------



## spentwings

But gee gst,,,what you and "jackals" are arguing about here,,,ear marks,,,special interests,,,plagiarism and prostitution,,,
it's but a drop in the bucket. It's all mutual animosity and it's a joke! 
Your patronization isn't appreciated. Although I can understand you and shaug's defense of the AG community,,,you' and the *jackals* are but the same. :lol:


----------



## gst

But gee spent, I was hoping you would get past your animousity and help me out with the discriptive term I was looking for.  Any ideas?

Actually spent it wasn't "patronization", I do enjoy debating issues with people that have differnt veiws and ideologies that can keep from calling people names simply because they have no other "knowledgble" or "intelligent" response.

Therein lies my concerns shared when you began down that road. Now that it seems you have realized the folly of gaining credibility by comparing someone to your dogs scrotum, "I simply thought you would be back to contributing to the "real discussion"

I was really hoping you would as it appears no one else here will. :wink: When asked to look in the mirro to examine Federal dollars spent on wildlife and sportsmen programs suddenly everyone is mum!  Perhaps they simply wore themselves out "bashing" agriculture spending. :roll:


----------



## spentwings

Come on gst,,,we all know,,even the jackals, that's this is all BS.

As for scrotum's and licking boots,,,that would never have been allowed on any other site that I know of.
What do you want me to say gst? You and shaug are better than the "jackals" and I'm worse than all of
you combined,,,,don't think so.


----------



## leadfed

*lead as plainsamn says, it appears you simpy wish to "continue down this personal path" in a juvenile manner rather than be a "part of the real discussion"* :wink: :roll:

led, if you can not begin to see how juvenile your continued journey "down this personal path" makes you appear, one must question the value of the $200,000 spent on your "education". Getting an education is NOT one of the "dumber things" one can do, not learning anything as a result is. :wink:

It seems no one wishes to address Federal spending cuts when the conversation is directed their way. Funny how the same few people on this site jump on the bash ag and ag producers bandwagon when that is the focas of discussion of Federal dollars, but how quiet they get when presented another venue of discussion of cutting Federal spending. :roll:[/quote]

leadfed said
Gabe one has to be personal with you as you are "unique" in your logic or lack thereof. You calling me juvenile is like the pot calling the kettle black as far as I'm concerned so I won't even acknowledge that bs. Trust me, I wish my daddy would have given me a bunch of land too so I could farm/ranch but I wasn't that lucky.

Anyway, about these federal spending cuts. Which ones should we get rid of? The first cut they should make is the frog skins that go into your pocket. After that, if they want to cut some more programs we I say go for it. How many trillion in debt are we? If it is crp so be it...but whats that going to do to your grain prices? If it is any of the others you listed and they are going to save that much money, so be it. All I know is we can't keep spening like we have been. If the cuts affect me negatively well I guess I will have to live with that. That is logical thinking gabe....something you cannot do.

By the way....how bout an answer to the one question I have asked you. Did you get taxed on that $330000 worth of subsidies you have recieved or is that tax free also. I just want to know if you do or not because the little I have received is taxed.


----------



## swift

Guys The topic was questioning Conrads desire to spend MORE tax money on crop insurance. Shaug and GST turn that into sportsman bashing as always. Shaug blasts every topic regarding tax spending but supports this one? Seems a bit egotistical and hypocritical. GST, well he his just being himself. He cares about him and his way atleast I can respect someone that looks out for their own. But the manner he does it removes any respect he may have garnered.

Fact is these two guys want it all. They don't want to give or even recognize that all they have is because of others. They like to throw out the arguement that what ag receives in tax dollars per tax payer is miniscule. Do they realize that the food they produce as individuals is even less? They cannot have an arguement without twisting and turning and coming to conclusions that are ridiculous. An example is the accusation that I bash thousands of ag producers. Fact is I bash two ag producers; 1. Shaug and 2. GST. Somehow GST's lack of education and educational envy on the both behalves lead them to bash the millions of college educated people in the country. ( see how silly it sounds?). And we are suppose to respect this juvenile behavior.

Lets get back on topic please...

Should ND's congressman be lobbying for more US tax money to go to crop insurance? Since the "thousands of ag producers have spoken through a NDFB resolution that they don't want anymore tax money it seems that the two vocal ag guys on this site would answer NO.

What say you GST? Shaug?


----------



## spentwings

On topic swift?
Conrad wants some type of legacy,,,suck up to the farmers is all he has left.
He'll go done in ND political history the as the epitome of the small man on the farm. :rollin: :rollin: 
I'm done with you ********,,especially you swift!!!!
Next to plains you're the ultimate *jackal*,,actually, I 'm starting to think my old buddy shaug's jackal description
has it right! :bop:


----------



## swift

spentwings said:


> On topic swift?
> Conrad wants some type of legacy,,,suck up to the farmers is all he has left.
> He'll go done in ND political history the as the epitome of the small man on the farm. :rollin: :rollin:
> I'm done with you a$$holes,,especially you swift!!!!
> Next to plains you're the ultimate *jackal*,,actually, I 'm starting to think my old buddy shaug's jackal description
> has it right! :bop:


I doubt your done. Coming here is like driving by a car wreck, you have to slow down and look no matter how bloody.

I realize spent your agenda is to be kicked off the site. I don't know why but it's as valid as a lot of reasons people have given to post on here.

Take care and good luck in the future.


----------



## spentwings

You're wrong ,,,I don't want to be kicked off,,,but if I am,,,I hope you're second in line.
BTW,,,I don't have an agenda,,, never have never will,,,I'm an honest man. :lol:


----------



## swift

Okay spentwings. Glad to know that.


----------



## spentwings

On second thought swift,,,someone needs to be banned from this site if for no other reason than NODAK's integrity.
Let me be the first to go,,,followed by plains.


----------



## gst

led, swift, what do you think you gain with the childish personal comments?

led you incorrectly assume I was "given" anything other than the ability to think , a lifetime of good examples and an opportunity to succeede, to learn to work hard based on example as well as the most important thing "given" to me, a lifetime standard of unquesstioned honesty and integrity.



swift said:


> What say you GST


I beleive swift I have said numerous times I support NDFB position on taking Federal funding out of agriculture including insurance.

As to the topic of this thread, the following is the third post in the thread.
by swift » Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:48 pm

_Not suprised, Just interested in Shaug's perspective on it. *He is all for reduction in federal spending.* The FB claims to want out of the goverment pocket book. So I thought this would be a good place for a news release denouncing any enhancements of the farm bill. I won't hold my breath though. Intresting that ND is the largest recipient per capita of the federal farm bill. We must have a boat load of people on food stamps. Because as GST claims a very small percentage actually goes to farmers._

It appears that you brought up others interest in reducing Federal spending. So in staying with YOUR comments on here, I am interested in how concerned YOU and plainsman are in "reducing federal spending". So far NO ONE has suggested any programs other than ag realted ones in their concerns over federal spending. Certainly as pointed out there are other wildlife and sportsman programs that maintain a significant amount of Federal spending as well. Plainsman says "everyone will have to cut", yet no one out of the gaggle of fellas on here bashing ag wish to identify any wildlife or sportsman programs to cut. :roll: Go figure.

Plains, swift, wish to be a part of the "real discussion" and identify some of these programs you beleive could be cut?? How about the two I identified for you? Heck how about just the one Dakota Grasslands Initiative? Here's a little blurp from the Bismarck Tribune about it.

The program could cost $588 million, based on past projects, and it could last 20 to 30 years, Kaczor said. That figure is a rough estimate and could change, he added.

It would be paid for with money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, which generates cash from oil and gas leases, excess motorboat fuel tax revenue and sales of surplus federal property.

The program is only a beginning to the federal agency's overall conservation strategy, which identifies 1.8 million acres of wetland and 10 million acres of grassland to be protected in the Prairie Pothole Region.

Kaczor said the approval process will continue until at least September 2011. The federal agency is taking public comment, with three public hearings scheduled for next week in Minot, N.D., Jamestown, N.D. and Huron, S.D

Read more: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-a ... z1ZUjl02ik

Note here that this is only 1/5 of the total proposed package.

I thought red an appropriate color for this deficiet spending of Federal dollars for this program rather than them being used to pay down our "extreme national debt". So who is willing to step up on this site from any wildlife or sportsman orgs and make the same commitment the ag org NDFB has done to do their part to "cut" federal spending?

Plainsamn, any ideas yet what programs "everyone" should look at from the wildlife and sportsman programs to cut?

Perhaps you guys CAN only comment on ag spending and don;t wish to be a part of any "real discussion" when it involves looking in a mirror. :wink:

What was that word I was looking for, I beleive it starts with H.



swift said:


> Seems a bit egotistical and hypocritical


Oh ya that's what it was! Thanks swift!  :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Swift, your right we are off subject. Spent your right too. I'll try one more time to moderate this, but I think the only way we can do it is present our perspective without addressing each other. This is the hot topics, but it has become to hot. I hope everyone can agree to do this. I have said about all I can think of, but Swift if you want more input to Conrad looking to spend more on agriculture insurance start another thread, because I will lock this one giving us all a chance to cool off. Thanks for your consideration and I am pointing no fingers. My attitude of if one says it and gets away with it I can't do anything is perhaps to blame so don't blame each other.


----------

