# "diversionary tactics"/concern over govt spending



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

What is the best "diversionary tactic" to avoid answering a question?

viewtopic.php?f=3&p=747061#p747061

by Plainsman » Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:23 pm

_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._

It seems some people will use any "diversionary tactics" to avoid answering a simple question regarding their veiws on Federal spending on wildlife and sportsmen programs!  Even locking a thread! :roll: Perks of the job I guess! :wink:

Oh well at least in the next inevitable "bash agriculture for Federal spending" thread there will now be a link to another thread that can be posted showing the "hypocritical" nature of some!

That is unless "they" remove the thread completely!  :wink: 

Oh and by the way as the originator of this thread, if anyone that is concerned about our govt spending wishes to point out any wildlife or sportsmen programs receiving Federal dollars in this time of "extreme national debt" when our "country is going broke" they wish to identify, perhaps something such as the Dakota Grasslands Initiative, feel free to "be a part of the real discussion" regarding our Federal debt and spending and go on record indentifying where "everyone will have to cut"! oke:


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

gst said:


> What is the best "diversionary tactic" to avoid answering a question?


Not quite sure gst,,,but hoping things will change around here for the benefit of all.
But then,,,it may not suit a victim"s agenda. :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

spent, hardly a "victim", just a sarcastic fella with a little time to kill now and then that as the wife says "would argue with a fence post if no one else was around"!

Perhaps that is why I like "argueing" on here so much as there is an abundance of fenc........ aw better not. :iroll: 

She also beleives I am a "stubborn Norwegian" but hey sometimes being "stubborn" is the only way something gets accomplished.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

Heh!
Kinda reminds me of a one liner I over heard my Dad tell when I was 12.
What do you call a Norwegian with a peg leg?,,,maybe it was a German,,,yeah I'm thinking it was a German.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

No idea.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

It doesn't really matter gst,,,like most Bohemians :wink: 
I've read everything by Jim Harrison,,,not that I'd recommend him. "The whiskey performed the function it was designed for----several hours of grace in which the drinker becomes convinced again of his viability as a human being....".


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

Heh!
I wonder if swift wud appreciate my "diversionary tactics"???
But more importantly gst,,,you go beyond just defending agriculture. :iroll: 
Antagonists and trolls are pretty close in my book of the _*spentwing chronicles*_.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> She also beleives I am a "stubborn Norwegian" but hey sometimes being "stubborn" is the only way something gets accomplished.


There are many that believes a stubborn man is a closed minded man.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> > She also beleives I am a "stubborn Norwegian" but hey sometimes being "stubborn" is the only way something gets accomplished.
> 
> 
> There are many that believes a stubborn man is a closed minded man.


And many of those people are fairly closed minded themselves! :wink:

As I tell her, there is a fine line recognizing the difference between stubborn and determined! 

Swift care to coment on plainsmnas statement that "everyone will have to cut" and identify what wildlife/sportsmen programs receiving Federal dollars should be cut?

I mean the NDFB is doing their part, step up and be a part of the "real discussion" it appears plainsamn is unwilling to be a part of! :wink:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Since I am not a member of any sportsman organization I have no knowledge of tax dollars going to sportsman. I am aware of the Pittman-Robertson act that taxes sportsman's items to go to sportsman related causes. I do not think any P/R funds should go anywhere but where they are suppose to go. To sportsman related causes. To divert P/R funds elsewhere should be a violation of law. I'm sure it is being done though.

Another issue you are not seeing is the overall benefit of "sportsman" related tax spending. Like clean water, clean air, increased habitat for both game and nongame animals.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> Since I am not a member of any sportsman organization I have no knowledge of tax dollars going to sportsman. I am aware of the Pittman-Robertson act that taxes sportsman's items to go to sportsman related causes. I do not think any P/R funds should go anywhere but where they are suppose to go. To sportsman related causes. To divert P/R funds elsewhere should be a violation of law. I'm sure it is being done though.


So you are pleading lack of knowledge as a "diversionary tactic" 

This surprises me as I am no where near as "educated" as you and yet I still have "knowledge" of any number of programs whereby federal dollars (tax and others) are going to sportsman/wildlife programs.

swift, I gave you a very specific sportsman/wildlife program that is funded by offshore oil revenues, NOT sportsman dollars as in the Pittman Roberts Act, in the Dakota Grasslands Initiative. What say you to this Federal deficiet spending swift?



swift said:


> Another issue you are not seeing is the overall benefit of "sportsman" related tax spending. Like clean water, clean air, increased habitat for both game and nongame animals.


Swift, most certainly there are "benefits" to these programs. Are you suggesting there is no " overall benefit" generated from the tax related spending to agriculture?


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> Swift are you suggesting there is no "benefit" generated from the tax related spending to agriculture?


Nope, do you have a guilty concious?

I did not read your example because your three and four posts in a row get tiring and your spin on things gets dizzying. Does ND see any of the gulf coast "sportsman" tax dollars?



> So you are pleading lack of knowledge as a "diversionary tactic" I gave you a very specific sportsman/wildlife program that is funded by offshore oil revenues, NOT sportsman dollars in the Dakota Grasslands Initiative. What say you to this Federal deficiet spending swift?


It's Okay to admit not having knowledge on a topic. You should try it sometime.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

[/quote="swift"] swift » Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:24 am 
Swift are you suggesting there is no "benefit" generated from the tax related spending to agriculture?

Nope, do you have a guilty concious?[/quote]

swift, I have readily admitted to learning something new almost every day, it is refreshing indeed to gain newfound knowledge. For example, just today I have learned someone that is so critical of federal spending towards agriculture had no "knowledge" of how many Federal dollars are spent on sportsman programs and where these dollars come from. I would have certainly thought someone so condemning and critical of other programs and those that benefit from them would be more "knowledgable" regarding those programs that benefit him as a sportsman. Guess I was wrong.

No guilty conscience swift, you might just be surprised at the value of food stuffs a rancher can produce over 15 years time for the American consumer. Especially when you compare the cost of what the product he raises sells for to consumers here in the US versus other countries abroad. The next time you sit down to a prime rib supper for around $30 bucks at a local resturant, do a little research as to what that same meal would cost in any number of other countries. That is if it was even avalible.

So just to be clear then, you are admitting there are overall benefits from ag related Federal spendig?



swift said:


> I did not read your example because your three and four posts in a row get tiring and your spin on things gets dizzying. Does ND see any of the gulf coast "sportsman" tax dollars?


Swift perhaps this unwillingness to be "educated" thru reading the links provided explains the lack of "knowledge" you admit to concerning where Federal dollars are being spent to benefit sportsmen. Take a moment to examine where the funding for the Dakota Grasslands Initiative comes from and you will find your own answer to your question. Then please consider and address if you beleive this one example of deficiet spending should be cut and these funds allocated to pay down our "extreme national debt".


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

Gabe, you pay income tax on those subsidies that make you economically profitable? I mean if they are going to make you "econimically profitable" as a farmer the least you could do is pay your fair share to the IRS like we do. Then maybe we could afford these "sportsman" orientated programs that don't affect the landowner at all :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

led, I am starting to beleive the txpayers got shorted on their investment. If you are going to keep quoting the "economically profitable" statement we will probably have to go back and revisit what context it was used in when I was interveiwed for an article on the differences between the US and Canadian cattle industries following the BSE issue.

Assuming a 30% tax liability on the dollars paid in Federal ag subsidies you refer to, it would hardly make up for the billions of dollars that are deficiet spent on wildlife sportsman programs. I hope your $200,000 "PhD" is not in mathematics! 

Lead, since you are apparently so "knowledgable" regarding these farm subsidy dollars, what is the average/acre dollar amount paid out that you are suggesting is all that makes one "economically profitable"? I mean if you wish to have an in depth "real discussion" about the actual "value" of the Federal dollars that have gone into ag, the very first place to start is how much they have contributed to the increased costs that are directly tied to these dollars flowing into ag. For every dollar the govt pays/acre, that is correspondingly how much more cost is also associated with those acres. So ag orgs like NDFB take a look at what these programs have actually cost the producer and have realized what they have actually accomplished for agriculture is driving the cost of production up in a corresponding relationship. Some have known this all along and have held a steadfast position of supporting removing govt funding from agriculture. :wink: Perhaps if you actually knew the people behind the computor screen you would have already known this. :roll:

So led, as you apparently beleive these federal dollars spent on agriculture are wasted and should be gone, as an "educated" young man who is facing the reality of paying for the "extreme national debt" this country is incurring, do you beleive any of the Federal dollars allocated to deficiet spend towards programs such as the Dakota Grasslands Initiative should be redirected to be paid towards reducing this national debt. Or do you beleive we should simply continue to deficiet spend until this country is indeed broke? 
You do realize that even if all ag related federal dollars were to stop being spent today, our national debt would still fall in the "extreme" catagory do you not? Surely you understand "everyone will have to cut" to begin to address this correct? So led as a sportsman what wildlife/sportsman programs do you wish to see cut?

Recall now, both shaug and I have steadfastly supported NDFB policy for the ending federal ag subsidies, what are you as a sportsman going to support in cuts in YOUR programs to do to do your part?

What sportsmen orgs do you beleong to led, what are they doing to do their part to remove the drain on the national debt their use of these federal dollars is creating?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

Hahaha. Whats wrong gabe, got those paties a little bunched up there!? You still didn't answer the question now did ya. Do you have to pay income tax on the subsidies you get? Like I said the little money I get compared to you is taxed....just showing you another spot where you are pampered into not failing. Yet you want MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE!!!!!! :lol: :lol:

You can poke fun as much as you want about my education gabe. Id do it all over again in a heart beat rather than suck my old mans tit dry to get where I am. You want to argue about where all these dollars you get "come" from, or "go" to, yadayadayada. It doesn't matter to me, you are still lining your pockets with tax payer money all the while reaping huge profits on high grain and cattle prices...all the while probably sitting in the same tax bracket of a mcdonalds worker because of all the f'n tax breaks you get! Ya you got it tough don't you gabe. Lets not forget that while being "economically profitable", you still seem to have endless hours on your hands to sit on your *** if front of a computer and tell everyone else how stupid there are for not agreeing with you that we should give you MORE in order to make your life easier. Like you are involved in the only damn profession in the world that matters. Arrogant *** hole is what it comes down to.

As far as those other programs you asked about, I already answered those questions earlier. Take em away if thats what they decide to do. It would suck but if thats what it takes the logic in me says thats what has to be done. Besides, with that dumb education I have I'm pretty sure I can travel to hunt/fish pretty much any time I want and I can do it full well knowing I earned it all by myself :wink:

Have a good night cutting, pasting, reasearching, googling and typing. I gotta go run my snare line now.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Well that didn't take long! 



leadfed said:


> Yet you want MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE!!!!!!


So how does supporting the NDFB position to end govt subsidies translate into "wanting MORE, MORE, MORE, MORE"

led you are letting your juvenile animousity get the better of your ability to reason once again.



leadfed said:


> you still seem to have endless hours on your hands to sit on your a$$ if front of a computer and tell everyone else how stupid there are for not agreeing with you that we should give you MORE in order to make your life easier.


At least you spelled "supid" right! 

led here it is , "please show where" I have ever said there should be "more" federal dollars going into ag " to make my life easier."

Not only is this childish persoanal animosity clouding your ability to reason, it appears to be affecting your ability to tell the truth as well. :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

GST.... I think many programs that get funding by the general fund should get cut or lose some funding..

Ie: wolf studies in MN. Or other study's that keep getting more and more funding.

But yet some places that don't get enough....ie moose population studies in MN. But again they will want more and more money.

But yes I can't name many groups that get the funding. But to right the ship of our economy. Many places will need to be cut loose from the goverment teet.

BTW..... the moose study and wolf study in my mind go hand in hand.....why is the moose population dwindling....because the wolf population is too big. No can the goverment give me millions because I beat 75% of that moose study will find the same conclusion i just came up with. :rollin:


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> Well that didn't take long!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Juvenile huh. Pot calling the kettle black gabe....just sayin' :wink: Tell me this then gabe. Why does the ndfb want to get rid of subsidies? It's free money so what I am GUESSING is that there is some hidden agenda involved....right? Why would anyone want to cut a program that gives them free, _*TAX FREE*_ $$$$$$? I mean its a noble gesture and all but I GUARANTEE you that by getting rid of that one program they figure it will be routed through a different program and still end up in your pocket one way or another.
I just don't buy your feel good story on how the NDFB is trying to help the US's deficit by getting rid of farm subsidies. So whats the catch there snake....errr gabe?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

led, there is simply a percentage of ag producers that have watched for every govt dollar put into ag, production costs are drove up in a correlating manner. So what is the actual "real" value of those dollars to the farmer?

Please if you can actually try and have some real discussion" without the childish rhetoric. It accomplishes little.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Chuck, I agree with you and plainsman that cuts are going to have to be made across the board, you address an area that could be cut, I wonder why plainsman who is so quick to point out areas in ag is so reluctant to point out areas in wildlife or sportsman programs.

An example of the Dakota Grasslands Initiative was given which will spend hundreds of millions of dollars, all of which are spent in deficiet. Yet he reamins silent on his veiw of wether this is a program that could be cut while we are in a time of "extreme national debt", plainsmans own discriptive term. Some might argue these Federal dollars are going into the producers pockets in much the same manner other ag dollars are, and could better be used paying down our "extreme national debt".

It seems as while Bruce is quick to condemn others for having their hands in the cookie jar in a specific manner, he is not willing to speak up corespondingly when asked to look in the mirror.

So I will put it to him a little more directly, specifically in this time of "extreme national debt" when our country is "going broke", should there be millions of dollars spent for the Dakota Grasslands Initiative that could easly be redirected to be spent towards paying down our national deficeit?

What say you plainsman?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> So I will put it to him a little more directly, specifically in this time of "extreme national debt" when our country is "going broke", should there be millions of dollars spent for the Dakota Grasslands Initiative that could easly be redirected to be spent towards paying down our national deficeit?
> 
> What say you plainsman?


I know its not directed at me but I'll take a stab. Although I'm not 100% sure what this initiative entails I have read the basics of it. I like it the way it reads and what it is going to do. With that said, at this point in national history and with the debt we have I can see how it might not be the right time for it.

Here is a question for you though gst. What would be your stance if we weren't in such a large national debt and actually had the money to spend on an initiative like this....would you be for it? :wink: I think I already know the answer to that one but I would like to hear what you have to say anyway.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> 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.*


Not exactly what is being alluded to by GST. But the topic is "diversionary tactics", for which he is a master.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Swift, the "topic also includes "concerns over govt spending" an area which plainsman quite often refers to in regards to Federal dollars spent in agriculture as being "greedy". He then claims "everyone" will have to cut to keep this "country fromg going broke" So what say you Bruce?? Should programs such as the example given be "cut", or does your "greed" prevent you from supporting doing YOUR part by advocating for redirecting these funds to address our "extreme national debt"? You remain uncharacteristically silent on this topic! 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created thru an act of Congress years ago to take these dollars coming into the Federal govt from offshore oil and allocate them to various programs, not all actually designed to benefit "conservation" ie. baseball diamonds, frisbee parks ect.... As led alludes to perhaps during this time of "extreme national debt" , the same act of Congress could transition these dollars to be used to keep our country from "going broke". If we are to drop the Federal dollars going into our nations food production programs in an attempt to lower Federal spending and decrease the deficiet, why not look at the other programs as well? After all as plainsman says "everyone will have to cut".

led, as I have stated previously I am all for single generation, mutually beneficial, renewable conservation easements. If this Initiative were to move foward under these guidelines I would support it. As a rancher I like to see grasslands stay in grass production. As an agriculturalist looking ahead, I do not support perpetual easements that may not allow what is best for agriculture into the future that have little or no means of readdresssing them. Nor do I like agreements in which one side can change the standards and the other is left no recourse but to go thru Federal courts and file a "takings" claim.

In short, simgle generation easements whereby each party can reasses the value and worth of the programs at some point and both parties can choose to continue or not I support.

Perpetual (FOREVER) agreements whereby one side can change parameters leaving the other no recourse but to go to court, and takes away the rights of other future generations to make choices on the lands they are entrusted with I do not.

The later is what he Dakota Grasslands Initiative currently is.

So plainsamn in a time of "extreme national debt" should we continue deficiet spending for programs such as this or not?


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

edited by spentwings


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> Perpetual (FOREVER) agreements whereby one side can change parameters leaving the other no recourse but to go to court, and takes away the rights of other future generations to make choices on the lands they are entrusted with I do not.
> 
> ?


You mean (FOREVER) kinda like inserting words into the constitution that allow people to run a buisness with no regulation? :wink: Looks like we finally agree on something!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > Perpetual (FOREVER) agreements whereby one side can change parameters leaving the other no recourse but to go to court, and takes away the rights of other future generations to make choices on the lands they are entrusted with I do not.
> ...


Now led, you are starting down a dangerous path here with that comment, plainsamn will most certainly be on here chastizing you for taking this thread "off topic" back onto the NDFB measure. Especially since there are any number of them left yet unlocked to comment on! 

But hey if we are going there yet again, can we assume by your comment that you actually beleive if this measure passes, there will be NO REGULATION on agriculture such as you have suggested above? :lol:

Spent, missed whatever comments would have been made by marksman. As to "cohort" status, I do not beleive I even know him let alone consider him a "cohort" . Perhaps if people were to make their identities known here rather than merely a made up name on a website it would take care of some of the types of comments made on here. :wink: But alas, given the cloak of anonimity and lack of accountability for what they say we see on this site, most are not willing to reveal who they really are.

*But back on topic here, plainsamn what say you to the cutting of Federal dollars going to a program such as the one I have gave as an example in this time of "extreme national debt"??* Surely given your past comments you do not wish to continue your "diversionary tactics" and would care to reply! 

Spent, "provacateur"?????, :iroll: in this case only when someone engages in "diversionary tactics" and takes a "hypocritically" noticably absent stance from putting in his two cents! :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

spentwings said:


> gst,,,as a provocateur,,I don't deserve any respect on NoDak.
> However your cohort,,,marksman??? went beyond the pale,,,and is dust in the wind.
> Hoping we'll both be next.


Spent, was gone for a few days so apparently missed somethings.  but given the nature of a post such as leds a few back, I wonder what you or I could say or have said that would have us being "dust in the wind" next?



leadfed said:


> Hahaha. Whats wrong gabe, got those paties a little bunched up there!? You still didn't answer the question now did ya. Do you have to pay income tax on the subsidies you get? Like I said the little money I get compared to you is taxed....just showing you another spot where you are pampered into not failing. Yet you want MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE!!!!!! :lol: :lol:
> 
> You can poke fun as much as you want about my education gabe. Id do it all over again in a heart beat rather than suck my old mans tit dry to get where I am. You want to argue about where all these dollars you get "come" from, or "go" to, yadayadayada. It doesn't matter to me, you are still lining your pockets with tax payer money all the while reaping huge profits on high grain and cattle prices...all the while probably sitting in the same tax bracket of a mcdonalds worker because of all the f'n tax breaks you get! Ya you got it tough don't you gabe. Lets not forget that while being "economically profitable", you still seem to have endless hours on your hands to sit on your a$$ if front of a computer and tell everyone else how stupid there are for not agreeing with you that we should give you MORE in order to make your life easier. Like you are involved in the only damn profession in the world that matters. Arrogant a$$ hole is what it comes down to.
> 
> ...


After a couple of comments in the post above and given Csquared's past repeated referal to the "Fluck" family from Ill who apparently were "fying" acrobats or perhaps trapeze artists of some sort, it appears the standard here is low enough you and I have yet to say anything of this nature to be the "next" ones off this site. Old marksman must have really crossed a line!  :wink:

Oh well maybe we can simply stick to the topic and get plainsamn to address what concerns over what wildlife and sportsman programs he feels needs to be cut in this time of "extreme national debt". He was given one as an example if he would care to comment!! :wink:


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

edited by spentwings


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> > gst said:
> ...


But hey if we are going there yet again, can we assume by your comment that you actually beleive if this measure passes, there will be NO REGULATION on agriculture such as you have suggested above? :lol:

leadfed said,

Come on gabe you and I know each other well enough on this site. I will take the "NO REGULATION" statement back and change it to "NO FURTHER REGULATION" like I have said NUMEROUS times before. Now it makes perfect sense doesn't it? :lol:

Your words
_*"Perpetual (FOREVER) agreements whereby one side can change parameters leaving the other no recourse but to go to court, and takes away the rights of other future generations to make choices on the lands they are entrusted with I do not.*_

I agree with this statement....so much so that it is the exact reason I don't like the proposed farm measure altering the CONSTITUTION none the less. :lol: I mean if you stand by your words gabe one would have to believe that you don't support that kind of (FOREVER) measure as well...eh? :lol:

PS. Seems like you really miss plaisman? Is that a man crush I sense on your behalf? :lol:


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

edited by spentwings


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Apparently my request is still being considered.


Sent it to higher powers my friend. :beer:


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's not impossible, but I'm not the guy who can do it.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> Your words
> "Perpetual (FOREVER) agreements whereby one side can change parameters leaving the other no recourse but to go to court, and takes away the rights of other future generations to make choices on the lands they are entrusted with I do not.
> 
> I agree with this statement....so much so that it is the exact reason I don't like the proposed farm measure altering the CONSTITUTION none the less. I mean if you stand by your words gabe one would have to believe that you don't support that kind of (FOREVER) measure as well...eh


led, the difference here you do not seem to catch is that what I have stated regarding the perpetual easements the USWFS is entering into is indeed fact. They retain the ability to change the parameters of the agreeement while the other party can not and the only recourse is Federal court and filing of a takings claim.

NO ONE on this site outside of "opinion" and conjecture has factually proven your claims this measure will disallow any further new regulatory law concerning agriculture from being implemented.

I have had a number of people I know and respect that have told me that this is in fact is simply not true. You will have to excuse me for giving the higher degree of credibility to people I actually know personally well enough to base their credibility more so than a made up name on a computer screen.

spent, if you no longer wish to be on the site, contact the site administrator and ask to be purged yourself. At this point your self loathing contributes little to the dialogue.

Led, no "man crush" just an example of plainsmans willingness to bash agriculture subsidies and the producers they go to in this time of "extreme national debt" all the while not being willing to identify programs for sportsmen and wildlfie that he beleives could be "cut to keep this country from "going broke".

He really does not even have to answer, the fact he is not willing to address this,well ...........................................................
Credibility
Hypocritical

And it will most certainly be simple enough to link this thread to the next bash govt ag subsidy comments brought up he chimes in on.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

gst said:


> [I spent, if you no longer wish to be on the site, contact the site administrator and ask to be purged yourself. At this point your self loathing contributes little to the dialogue.


So my guess is you didn't like the trough comment. :rollin:


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

edited by spentwings


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

Gst said
NO ONE on this site outside of "opinion" and conjecture has factually proven your claims this measure will disallow any further new regulatory law concerning agriculture from being implemented.

Leadfed said,

And *NO ONE* OFF or ON (you and shaug) this site outside of "opinion" has factually proven that my claims are indeed false. No one, not one person, zero, zip, zilch! No one knows what that measure could do, including you, and THAT is the problem. Plain and simple.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

edited by spentwings


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> Gst said
> NO ONE on this site outside of "opinion" and conjecture has factually proven your claims this measure will disallow any further new regulatory law concerning agriculture from being implemented.
> 
> Leadfed said,
> ...


so led, are you claiming the ND Attorney Generals office would not be an adequate source of a ruling on wether this amendment would prevent any and all further regulation on agriculture as you and others have claimed?

Spent, wallow in your own self pity if you wish, you at times had some sharp witted comments that were amusing, lately not so much, yip away if you wish.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

Self pity?
,,,you haven't a clue.
You're a small man, a NDFB lackey, that's never had a touch of humility or an inkling of introspection.
It's that type of mentality that the swills love.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

spentwings said:


> but unless I'm put down like the dog I am,,,





spentwings said:


> Dust in the wind? I should have died 44 years ago





spentwings said:


> Self pity?
> ,,,you haven't a clue.


Sorry if I mistook what you said in the wrong context. Perhaps self loathing would have been more apt. Either way if you wish to yap at my heels so be it, it is a nusiance I have grown used to on this site.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> > but unless I'm put down like the dog I am,,,
> ...


Perhaps both,,,but then you left out anger.
You have the high ground gst,,,but then you didn't have to do anything but sit back and watch me self destruct.
No self-pity/hate or even anger in that statement,,,embarrassment of the fact that's all.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> > Gst said
> ...


Nice try gabe.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Can somebody post the Attorney Generals opinion that supports GST's rhetoric and proves the concerns of Lead and Plainsmans to be false. Please anyone. May be hard since there is no AG opinion on the matter. More diversionary tactics by the diversionary master.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > leadfed said:
> ...


So led, what are "your" claims regarding ths measure???


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

spentwings said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > spentwings said:
> ...


spent in case you missed it, I actually enjoyed your slightly sharpened comments from time to time even if they were directed close to home. Choose to leave or not, the indecisiveness of it is out of context with those entertaining comments.

Anger???? If you let comments from a website such as this create "anger" in your life, perhaps professional help is needed! :-?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

by Plainsman » Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:56 am

_Bad Dog, I picked this up on the Drudge Report yesterday. I thought of the NDFB first thing. I am not bashing, I am dead serious. These folks have a problem, and they are going right down the path of the Freemen, Posse Comitatus, and sovereign citizens. Look at their stand on most things and compare it to sovereign citizens. Same playbook. 
Bad Dog a couple of things that point to anti wildlife is the attempt to take from the Game and Fish license fees for township roads. Then I looked at that grassland initiative which has duck stamp money, and they want to use that for something else. Anti wildlife is just the tip of the mad iceberg._

Now palisnamn, so not to "divert" attention from the facts, the vast majority of funding for this Dakota Grasslands Initiative program comes from the Land and Water Conservation fund which is Federal dollars generated from of shore oil and gass leases. So now after making much adeau about how "everyone will have to cut" are you now suggesting these funds should NOT be used to pay down our "extreme national debt"???

If not these funds, plainsamn, what wildlife and sportsmen funds from the Federal reserves that are being deficiet spent do you think shold be "cut". Remember now, you said "everyone will ave to cut", so where exactly should these cuts come from??? I mean as you said plainsman, this "country is oing boke" surely one would think someone as vocal as you on this site regarding the various ways Federal dollars are spent would have somethig to say about these other programs!!! :roll:

Credibility
Hypocritical


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

As I said, plainsamn does not need to reply to the question that was asked in response to his "everyone will have to cut" statement.

It has become clear from his unwillingness to answer where the "cuts" to these sportsmen and wildlife programs should be, that he does not actually support cutting any of them.

So when the next round of "this country is going broke", and "extrreme national debt" comments arise in a thread bashing agiculture subsidies and ag producers, we will simply have to reference this link to see the disingenuous nature of the plainsamn rhetoric "everyone will have to cut" .

The "diversionary tactics" of turning a thread examining "concern over govt spending" into yet one more bash NDFB and their measure thread are thinly veiled and poorly attempted. :wink:


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

So led, what are "your" claims regarding ths measure???[/quote]

Simple gabe. NO ONE knows what this measure could potentially do. Not me, not you and not the AG. Thats the problem with it. It will allow you as a farmer/rancher to run a buisness with no FURTHER regulation. Yes there are laws in existance right now that regulate you, I know that and for the most part they are GOOD laws. The ramifications of this measure could have a rippling affect across ND at some point, adversly affecting not only sportsman but the people who dreampt it up.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> Simple gabe. NO ONE knows what this measure could potentially do. Not me, not you and not the AG. Thats the problem with it


led, if what you claim above is true..........................................................................................

then how can you make the following claim?



leadfed said:


> It will allow you as a farmer/rancher to run a buisness with no FURTHER regulation.


 :-?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Re: NDFB opposes using oil tax revenue for conservation
by Plainsman » Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:14 pm

_Wildlife Society and Wildlife Federation members. Government advocacy groups.

Some of those guys could be government employees, but what they are trying to do isn't advocating government it's advocating habitat and wildlife. I would guess the oil money is not tax, but habitat mitigation. The duck stamp isn't a tax and belongs to sportsmen. *I advocate we all cut back,* but I don't advocate robbing sportsmen to give it to other groups. Specific funds paid by specific people should go for specific purposes. I hardly ever go duck hunting, but I know that money belongs to duck hunters. I am more into predators and big game, but I'm not going to advocate stealing from duck hunters who are fellow sportsmen to promote what I like._

plainsamn, once again here you are with your "we all need to cut" claims. Now what is your position on the usage of Federal offshore oil revenues for deficeit spending on wildlife and sportsman programs thru the Dakota Grasslands Initiative rather than using them to pay down our "extreme national debt" before this country "goes broke"?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> > Simple gabe. NO ONE knows what this measure could potentially do. Not me, not you and not the AG. Thats the problem with it
> ...


You my friend are digging in sand with a spoon. :lol: I'm fairly positive you know where we are coming from and a small part of you knows this measure is bogus, yet you still are raming your noggin into a brick wall.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Lead at least you posted your response in the appropriate titled thread, "diversionary tactics". Even though it is "off topic". :wink: Surprising, plainsman is notoriously abscent in chastising dragging a thread "off topic"! :wink:

Now once again:


gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> > Simple gabe. NO ONE knows what this measure could potentially do. Not me, not you and not the AG. Thats the problem with it
> ...


Please explain, how if "no one knows what this measure could potentially do", how can you then claim to "know" it would prevent "further regulations" ?

I mean from your statement, "It will allow you as a farmer/rancher to run a buisness with no FURTHER regulation" it appears that you 
"know" what this measure will do in making this claim. Yet in your other statement you claim not me nor you or the ND AG "knows" what this measure will do. It would appear one of these statements simply can not be true. :-? Which one is not?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> Lead at least you posted your response in the appropriate titled thread, "diversionary tactics". Even though it is "off topic". :wink: Surprising, plainsman is notoriously abscent in chastising dragging a thread "off topic"! :wink:
> 
> Now once again:
> 
> ...


Well isn't that what it is going to do gabe? Why don't you tell me, for certain and without a doubt what this measure will exactly do and what it could possibly do. One has to include "could possibly do" becasue NO ONE KNOWS!!!!!...so technically I could be SPOT on with my statement....not? Also if further regulation was needed in the farming ranching community would it be able to happen and what would it take to do it?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

gst said:


> Lead at least you posted your response in the appropriate titled thread, "diversionary tactics". Even though it is "off topic". :wink: Surprising, plainsman is notoriously abscent in chastising dragging a thread "off topic"! :wink:
> 
> Now once again:
> 
> ...


lead, it should not take a $200,000 dollar "education" to have the "knowledge" to understand one claim does not support the other.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

Please explain, how if "no one knows what this measure could potentially do", how can you then claim to "know" it would prevent "further regulations" ?

I mean from your statement, "It will allow you as a farmer/rancher to run a buisness with no FURTHER regulation" it appears that you 
"know" what this measure will do in making this claim. Yet in your other statement you claim not me nor you or the ND AG "knows" what this measure will do. It would appear one of these statements simply can not be true. :-? Which one is not?[/quote]

Well isn't that what it is going to do gabe? Why don't you tell me, for certain and without a doubt what this measure will exactly do and what it could possibly do. One has to include "could possibly do" becasue NO ONE KNOWS!!!!!...so technically I could be SPOT on with my statement....not? Also if further regulation was needed in the farming ranching community would it be able to happen and what would it take to do it?[/quote]

Answer my questions gabe!lol Or can't you? :wink:


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

Please explain, how if "no one knows what this measure could potentially do", how can you then claim to "know" it would prevent "further regulations" ?

I mean from your statement, "It will allow you as a farmer/rancher to run a buisness with no FURTHER regulation" it appears that you 
"know" what this measure will do in making this claim. Yet in your other statement you claim not me nor you or the ND AG "knows" what this measure will do. It would appear one of these statements simply can not be true. :-? Which one is not?[/quote]

lead, it should not take a $200,000 dollar "education" to have the "knowledge" to understand one claim does not support the other.[/quote]

OK OK if it take me to answer your twisted question first I will but I expect a straight forward answer from you after. You want to know which statement of mine is not true right? Well here is your answer gabe......I DON"T KNOW WHICH ONE! Hows that? Really I don't. But if one is wrong, obviously one is right. :wink: I mean it could allow you to farm with no FURTHER regulation beyond what we have right now...correct?( so that one might be right) On the other hand, it is a possiblitlity that no one, including you, have absolutely no idea what this measure will do. So which one is wrong and which one is right gabe...maybe you in your infinate wisdom can answer that for me because I really don't know. :wink:

Waiting for an answer bud.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

led, I have stated previously people whose "knowledge" and "education" I respect far more than someone with an anonimous made up name on an internet website have shared with me what their "opinions" are of what this measure will do. These people are far more "knowledgable" in this area than I and as result I respect what they have told me until someone proves otherwise.

Contrary to what other anounimous names on this site have claimed, this has not been done. So how then if you claim no one knows what this measure will do can you state it will remove the ability to regulate agriculture in the future?

I do not expect you to accept what I have been told anymore than I accept your claims or those of others I do not know as to what this measure will do. At some point I would guess an official legal opinion will have to be givn and I would venture a guess even then it will not be good enough for some.

As I have stated before, if indeed this measure will do what you say, I would not support it, for as it would remove regulations fromme, it would also remove regulations from others that could negatively affect me. So if indeed you have proof other than anounimous peoples claims on an outdoor website, please share the facts you have to substantiate your claim.

Unless as you leave open for consideration, the statement whereby you indeed admit knowing you do not "know" what this measure will do so therefore you could not know it will remove the ability to regulate ag in the future as you claim, is indeed the true statement of the two and the claim itself of no further regulations on ag is not true as you admitted not knowing what this meassure will do, so how can you know what it will do as far as future regulations on ag if you admit you do not know what it will do?! :wink:

There you go bud!


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> led, I have stated previously people whose "knowledge" and "education" I respect far more than someone with an anonimous made up name on an internet website have shared with me what their *"opinions"* are of what this measure will do. These people are far more "knowledgable" in this area than I and as result I respect what they have told me until someone proves otherwise.
> 
> Contrary to what other anounimous names on this site have claimed, this has not been done. So how then if you claim no one knows what this measure will do can you state it will remove the ability to regulate agriculture in the future?
> 
> ...


Not a bad post from you at all gabe. That is what I was trying to get through your thick skull this whole time....and that is no one, including you or your team of who's "knowledge" and "education" you repect more than mine, have no SOLID/FACTUAL truth's as to how this measure might be used if it goes through. ThAT is what bothers me and others. If something is going to be added to the constitution it needs to be concrete. I know you listen and trust this "Team" of yours better than anonimous names and I can see how one would do that.....I would too. However, why can't what I have been saying potentially happen when considering how this measure is currently worded? I admit, I don't "know" what this measure is going to do but neither do you and for what it's worth I could be spot on and the way it stands no one can disprove that.

An official legal FACT sheet would definetely help! NOT a legal "opinion". Of course this would need to originate from someone who has no cards in the hand....like the lawyers from NDFB :wink: Hell, I might change my mind on it if it was proven from multiple legal sources that this measure would not prevent further regulation of the farmer/rancher in the future. And I sure as hell would change my mind if it was proven that the only thing it was going to do (which is the only thing I have heard your side say it was going to do) is keep HSUS/PETA out of ND.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> An official legal FACT sheet would definetely help! NOT a legal "opinion". Of course this would need to originate from someone who has no cards in the hand....like the lawyers from NDFB Hell, I might change my mind on it if it was proven from multiple legal sources that this measure would not prevent further regulation of the farmer/rancher in the future. And I sure as hell would change my mind if it was proven that the only thing it was going to do (which is the only thing I have heard your side say it was going to do) is keep HSUS/PETA out of ND.


I'm with you. I have not let people tick me off to the point I will not do the right thing just to get even. I have experienced that to much myself. Some say I'm not conservative while the liberals on the political form tell me I am radical conservative. :rollin: Some say I'm not a sportsmen even though I spend 90% of my recreational money on hunting, and was hunting when they still loaed their diapers. :rollin: Keep HSUS and PETA out of any decisions. Not just because I dislike them, but because they make emotional decisions not logical. We need decisiona about wildlife based on sound science. Even if it is from the Game and Fish. oke:

I was going to ignore this, but two positive posts in a row just felt to good to be quiet. Hats off guys.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > led, I have stated previously people whose "knowledge" and "education" I respect far more than someone with an anonimous made up name on an internet website have shared with me what their *"opinions"* are of what this measure will do. These people are far more "knowledgable" in this area than I and as result I respect what they have told me until someone proves otherwise.
> ...


So leadfed, what do you think the ND Attorney General and the people he has working in his office are?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > An official legal FACT sheet would definetely help! NOT a legal "opinion". Of course this would need to originate from someone who has no cards in the hand....like the lawyers from NDFB Hell, I might change my mind on it if it was proven from multiple legal sources that this measure would not prevent further regulation of the farmer/rancher in the future. And I sure as hell would change my mind if it was proven that the only thing it was going to do (which is the only thing I have heard your side say it was going to do) is keep HSUS/PETA out of ND.
> 
> 
> *I'm with you. I have not let people tick me off to the point I will not do the right thing just to get even*. I have experienced that to much myself. Some say I'm not conservative while the liberals on the political form tell me I am radical conservative. :rollin: Some say I'm not a sportsmen even though I spend 90% of my recreational money on hunting, and was hunting when they still loaed their diapers. :rollin: Keep HSUS and PETA out of any decisions. Not just because I dislike them, but because they make emotional decisions not logical. We need decisiona about wildlife based on sound science. Even if it is from the Game and Fish. oke:
> ...


palinsamn then if you truly have concerns that have not been addressed and wish the "truth" be known about this measure, why do you not use any of the several avenues avalible to you that were identified to gain an answer from the ND AG's office?

Gaining actual unbiased information about this measure to get the "truth" known would indeed be the "right thing". :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst we have been over this. I don't think the AG can give an opinion at this point, and if he did it's only opinion at this point. His opinion at this point is no better than yours or mine. He could give an opinion on if the law would be legal, but none of us can say what this amendment can do. There is the problem. The unknown is a scary thing for everyone. Even for those who will not admit it.
I don't represent anyone like our old friend gohon accuses me of, nor am I arrogant as he thinks because on another site I keep using the word we. I use that as an indication of all of us who are not NDFB. In all honesty gst this bugs me a lot. It bugs me because I have agreed with many things the NDFB advocates. I guess I still do. However, this amendment that is totally unknown has cast a shadow over all else that they do.
Do you want to make some headway out of this pit we have ourselves in? I do. I understand that NDFB wants all regulations abolished. I don't think that is reasonable. Would you trust me with nothing to control me? I wouldn't. Power corrupts. Anyway I asked before that someone name some regulations you would like to see abolished. Name some things you think we just average North Dakotan's would support. I would guess there are some. Support for removing some could replace some of the trust we have lost. Rather than asking us to blindly support an amendment we see as threatening lets see if we have common ground. Are you willing to give that a shot? Don't go making the first one the toughest now gst. :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

So plainsman, you are now saying the legal professional that has been elected by the people of ND as well as his staff of legal professionals is not qualified to say in an official capacity what the parameters of this measure will be to address your question of the ability to regulate agriculture thru the legislative process in a matter of "statewide significance"?



Plainsman said:


> There is the problem. The unknown is a scary thing for everyone. Even for those who will not admit it.


The "unknown" is "scary" only for those that refuse to try to "educate" themselves so things do not remain "unknown".

But Plainsamn, lets try and stay on topic here if we can.

So Bruce, now that you are engaged in the dialogue, perhaps you would care to continue to be a "part of the real discussion" of the concerns you have over our "extreme national debt" and share with us wether you beleive the hundreds of millions of dollars collected from offshore oils leases into the Federal coffers should best be spent paying down this "extreme national debt" before this "country goes broke" or continue to be deciciet spent on programs such as the Dakota Grasslands Initiative?

As you said, "everyone will have to cut", what do YOU think about starting here?


----------

