Measure #3

Pages

476 posts / 0 new
Last post
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
there's a significant difference between the hunting measure and this measure and it's already been pointed out go back and read it.

espringers in a state of sportsmen andhunters such as ND, why was THIS constitutional amendment needed?????

You can not claim these groups are not a "problem" for agriculture in opposing this constitutional amendment and turn around and claim the very same orgs are "problems" for sportsmen and so a constitutional amendment was needed.

So WHY was a hunting amendment placed in our constitution?

espringers wrote:here is why jeff's explanations carry no weight with me... 1. it doesn't matter what hsus and peta do here or anywhere else. each of their issues can be addressed on their own merits by our voters without giving you guys blanket protection that goes well beyond protection from just those two boogeymen.

espringers how did you vote on the amendment to the constitution protecting hunting, for or against? Please answer this.

Why?

Pretty sure he is talking about the savings clause... No matter what you say M3 has no savings clause. Ask a lawyer and then remove  your foot from your mouth and come back and let us know what you found out.

I don't know where you have been during the discussion, but that is pretty much what I have done. Forgive me if legal professionals opinions I actually know and trust carry more weight for me than the law firm of FBO and partners whom I have ever met.

You guys simply can not dismiss the first sentence of this measure in interpreting it's intent as you wish to .

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Pretty sure he is talking about the savings clause... No matter what you say M3 has no savings clause. Ask a lawyer and then remove  your foot from your mouth and come back and let us know what you found out.

Why is it needed?????

The savings clause is needed because it specifically states that the right is there but can still be regulated in the hunting language. As I stated before there is no such savings clause in M3 only that nothing can abridge the right to use modern farming practices. If the hunting language said that nothing could abridge the right to hunt then we would likely have some serious judicial challenges because Tom, Dick, and Harry could go out and hunt whatever/whenever and claim it is their given right. 

The "savings clause" is the first sentence which CLEARLY spells out the intent of the amendment. It is not to deregulate agriculture but to protect the right to ENGAGE  As long as the abridgement does not prevent the "right" to engage there is not a problem. You simply can not dismiss this sentence as worthless as you wish. It most certainly would not be in any judicial challenge.

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:
iluvswnd.
The source? google food costs in most any European nation. Goggle animal rights laws in Europe, ect.... Jeff shared the cost of a dozen eggs in sweden where these policies of these orgs have been adopted. Wen is that last time you paid $8 for a dozen eggs?

You can not "leave measure 5" out of the discussion of Measure 3 and have an honest dialogue rearding measure 3 as who is behind Measure 5 is the very intent and premise of Measure 3. Even espringers made that connection altough it seems not to have swayed him.

Obviously food is going to be more expensive in any country that has strict animal rights laws. I asked you for a source because it's very easy to make generalized statements like "these policies and orgs" and "in countries banning certain ag practices." It moves your idea along and spreads it out there to anyone who still cares enough to click and read about the M3 thread here. However, it hurts your credibility in my eyes because you don't want to take the time to cite specific articles and sources you would rather just spew information 2nd-hand. 

I've seen enough of your bantering on here to know gst that one of your predominant tactics is to constantly question everything that anyone writes but whenever you make a statement they should have to go research and prove you wrong. If you want to make claims you should back them up, not challenge others to go back and do it for you. 

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

I see you are being productive again this morning gabe

in between loading out trucks so have a bit of time west, thanks for your concern, but I guess I consider dispelling rhetoric and outright bullshit claims regarding an amendment to our constitution "productive" wether you do or not.

Or sitting here spewing your own rhetoric and bullshit maybe? 

J

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

yes.  i voted for the hunting measure.  it is needed for the same reason you think you need this measure.  but, it has language that allows for reasonable regulation.  yours appears not to.  there is a big difference.  it has been pointed out to you and you keep ignoring it.

the history of the two orgs does not matter.  if this measure was really about just what you say it is about, they would be fools to oppose it and come out the way they do.  you know that and i know that.  if it was really about one always opposing what the other does, then we wouldn't have them on the same side on such clear cut issues like described above.  if this issue was also as clear cut, there is no doubt they would be on the same side.  fact is it isn't... quit claiming it is... nobody buys it but those guys who are farmers and ranchers standing side by side in this argment with you.  you won't even admit there is the possibility we are right.  if you would do that, you would have to oppose this measure to right?

i shouldn't have to prove anything to you.  the onus is on you.  this measure is for your benefit and you are asking us to support it.  you don't have to trust us... we have to trust you and you haven't earned it yet.  at least one person (me) and the farmers union disagree with you.  if we are right and you are wrong, the harm would already be done.  since you can't prove otherwise, even if there is only a 10% chance (i peg it much much higher) that we are right, why the hell should we chance it?  go back to the drawing board and get some better language and i will support it and so will farmer's union. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

iluvswnd Said:
 
gst Said:

HUNTNFISHND Said:

gst,

Replace farming and ranching with mining in the wording of this measure. Would you still support this measure?

As long as the state legislature is still able to create and impose reasonable regulations as they will if this measure passes, yes.

Umm, why the caveat? You told us that it wouldn't affect them creating and imposing reasonable regulations on agriculture if M3 passes so why would you throw the "as long as" onto your answer regarding the hypothetical mining measure with the exact wording???


You've been avoiding this for over a page now so I figured I would bring it back so you could answer it. 

I see you are being productive again this morning gabe

in between loading out trucks so have a bit of time west, thanks for your concern, but I guess I consider dispelling rhetoric and outright bullshit claims regarding an amendment to our constitution "productive" wether you do or not.

The only bullshit being spewed on this site is once again coming from your computer.  I can just see you running from the auger to the house just bursting with anticipation on getting to type some more fallacies.haha  And all that time wasted and life years lost to bp spikes on 15 to 20 people who might read your posts who already have their mind made up anyway.haha

Do yourself a favor.  Sell one of those loads of grain and buy yourself a new rifle and go on another hunt.  I mean, holy crap, if this measure doesn't pass there goes your economically profitable operation

Take care bud.  I'm out for a few days hunting.  You take care now ya hear!

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:
iluvswnd.
The source? google food costs in most any European nation. Goggle animal rights laws in Europe, ect.... Jeff shared the cost of a dozen eggs in sweden where these policies of these orgs have been adopted. Wen is that last time you paid $8 for a dozen eggs?

OMG $2.00 eggs in Sweden??  That's like a savings of $6!!! 

http://ropcorn.com/d/food-and-gas-prices-in-Sweden-today.html



J

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:
iluvswnd.
The source? google food costs in most any European nation. Goggle animal rights laws in Europe, ect.... Jeff shared the cost of a dozen eggs in sweden where these policies of these orgs have been adopted. Wen is that last time you paid $8 for a dozen eggs?

You can not "leave measure 5" out of the discussion of Measure 3 and have an honest dialogue rearding measure 3 as who is behind Measure 5 is the very intent and premise of Measure 3. Even espringers made that connection altough it seems not to have swayed him.

Obviously food is going to be more expensive in any country that has strict animal rights laws. I asked you for a source because it's very easy to make generalized statements like "these policies and orgs" and "in countries banning certain ag practices." It moves your idea along and spreads it out there to anyone who still cares enough to click and read about the M3 thread here. However, it hurts your credibility in my eyes because you don't want to take the time to cite specific articles and sources you would rather just spew information 2nd-hand. 

I've seen enough of your bantering on here to know gst that one of your predominant tactics is to constantly question everything that anyone writes but whenever you make a statement they should have to go research and prove you wrong. If you want to make claims you should back them up, not challenge others to go back and do it for you. 

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

I see you are being productive again this morning gabe

in between loading out trucks so have a bit of time west, thanks for your concern, but I guess I consider dispelling rhetoric and outright bullshit claims regarding an amendment to our constitution "productive" wether you do or not.

Or sitting here spewing your own rhetoric and bullshit maybe? 

iluvswnd if you have seen enough of my tactics you should also then now how many times I also provide links as well. You wish to have me hand them to you instead of informing yourself thru a few minutes of your time fine.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=impact+of+animal+rights+laws+on+food+costs+in+Europe&form=MSNH14&pq=impact+of+animal+rights+laws+on+food+costs+in+europe&sc=0-18&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=

Or another
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Has+animal+rights+laws+impacted+food+costs+in+other+countries.+&form=MSNH14&pq=has+animal+rights+laws+impacted+food+costs+in+other+countries.+&sc=0-18&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=

it appears that even though you admit animal rights laws will impact food costs you simply wish to argue the point?????

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

iluvswnd Said:
 
gst Said:

HUNTNFISHND Said:

gst,

Replace farming and ranching with mining in the wording of this measure. Would you still support this measure?

As long as the state legislature is still able to create and impose reasonable regulations as they will if this measure passes, yes.

Umm, why the caveat? You told us that it wouldn't affect them creating and imposing reasonable regulations on agriculture if M3 passes so why would you throw the "as long as" onto your answer regarding the hypothetical mining measure with the exact wording???


You've been avoiding this for over a page now so I figured I would bring it back so you could answer it. 

I see you are being productive again this morning gabe

in between loading out trucks so have a bit of time west, thanks for your concern, but I guess I consider dispelling rhetoric and outright bullshit claims regarding an amendment to our constitution "productive" wether you do or not.

The only bullshit being spewed on this site is once again coming from your computer.  I can just see you running from the auger to the house just bursting with anticipation on getting to type some more fallacies.haha  And all that time wasted and life years lost to bp spikes on 15 to 20 people who might read your posts who already have their mind made up anyway.haha

Do yourself a favor.  Sell one of those loads of grain and buy yourself a new rifle and go on another hunt.  I mean, holy crap, if this measure doesn't pass there goes your economically profitable operation

Take care bud.  I'm out for a few days hunting.  You take care now ya hear!

West, but I thought you said plainsmans DDT claim ws bullshit?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
yes.  i voted for the hunting measure.  it is needed for the same reason you think you need this measure.  but, it has language that allows for reasonable regulation.  yours appears not to.  there is a big difference.  it has been pointed out to you and you keep ignoring it.

the history of the two orgs does not matter.  if this measure was really about just what you say it is about, they would be fools to oppose it and come out the way they do.  you know that and i know that.  if it was really about one always opposing what the other does, then we wouldn't have them on the same side on such clear cut issues like described above.  if this issue was also as clear cut, there is no doubt they would be on the same side.  fact is it isn't... quit claiming it is... nobody buys it but those guys who are farmers and ranchers standing side by side in this argment with you.  you won't even admit there is the possibility we are right.  if you would do that, you would have to oppose this measure to right?

i shouldn't have to prove anything to you.  the onus is on you.
  this measure is for your benefit and you are asking us to support it.  you don't have to trust us... we have to trust you and you haven't earned it yet.  at least one person (me) and the farmers union disagree with you.  if we are right and you are wrong, the harm would already be done.  since you can't prove otherwise, even if there is only a 10% chance (i peg it much much higher) that we are right, why the hell should we chance it?  go back to the drawing board and get some better language and i will support it and so will farmer's union. 

Then you can not claim HSUS andPEAT are simply "boogey men" as you and plainsman do.

espringers I am not the one claiming this measure is doing something NO ONE else will
Nort legislature, not the media, no one outside this website.

Youstill have not explained that given the fact the legislature ultimately determines wether this measure will limit them from regulating agriculture how it will in ANY way accomplish that as there is simpoly no way that would be allowed.

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

iluvswnd Said:
 
gst Said:

HUNTNFISHND Said:

gst,

Replace farming and ranching with mining in the wording of this measure. Would you still support this measure?

As long as the state legislature is still able to create and impose reasonable regulations as they will if this measure passes, yes.

Umm, why the caveat? You told us that it wouldn't affect them creating and imposing reasonable regulations on agriculture if M3 passes so why would you throw the "as long as" onto your answer regarding the hypothetical mining measure with the exact wording???


You've been avoiding this for over a page now so I figured I would bring it back so you could answer it. 

I see you are being productive again this morning gabe

in between loading out trucks so have a bit of time west, thanks for your concern, but I guess I consider dispelling rhetoric and outright bullshit claims regarding an amendment to our constitution "productive" wether you do or not.

The only bullshit being spewed on this site is once again coming from your computer.  I can just see you running from the auger to the house just bursting with anticipation on getting to type some more fallacies.haha  And all that time wasted and life years lost to bp spikes on 15 to 20 people who might read your posts who already have their mind made up anyway.haha

Do yourself a favor.  Sell one of those loads of grain and buy yourself a new rifle and go on another hunt.  I mean, holy crap, if this measure doesn't pass there goes your economically profitable operation

Take care bud.  I'm out for a few days hunting.  You take care now ya hear!

West, but I thought you said plainsmans DDT claim ws bullshit?

Haha.  Prove it gabe.  I might have but don't think I used the term "bullshit".  But I still want you to prove that statement.  At least it will give you something else to do.haha

Or how about another one of those feel good bs stories about how you are always helping the needy out or something like that.  Just something new gabe.  I'm finding myself scanning your retarded posts again.

You should also post a picture of your computer station.  I would love to see that "cockpit"....pun intended.

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

iluvswnd if you have seen enough of my tactics you should also then now how many times I also provide links as well. You wish to have me hand them to you instead of informing yourself thru a few minutes of your time fine.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=impact+of+animal+rights+laws+on+food+costs+in+Europe&form=MSNH14&pq=impact+of+animal+rights+laws+on+food+costs+in+europe&sc=0-18&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=

Or another
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Has+animal+rights+laws+impacted+food+costs+in+other+countries.+&form=MSNH14&pq=has+animal+rights+laws+impacted+food+costs+in+other+countries.+&sc=0-18&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=

it appears that even though you admit animal rights laws will impact food costs you simply wish to argue the point?????

bing? seriously? I ask you for sources and you link me a search engine with the words filled in? I'm plenty capable chief, however i prefer google for searches.

Ii'm not arguing that animal rights laws will impact food costs. You're missing my point. My point is that

  1. You don't back up your "facts" with sources
  2. This measure isn't about animal rights laws (don't tell me it's supposed to prevent them. If that was the intent it could have been worded that way)
  3. You're wrong anyway, see the Sweden link

J

WormWiggler's picture
WormWiggler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/29/09

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:
iluvswnd.
The source? google food costs in most any European nation. Goggle animal rights laws in Europe, ect.... Jeff shared the cost of a dozen eggs in sweden where these policies of these orgs have been adopted. Wen is that last time you paid $8 for a dozen eggs?

OMG $2.00 eggs in Sweden??  That's like a savings of $6!!! 

http://ropcorn.com/d/food-and-gas-prices-in-Sweden-today.html



Now we are on to something,  how far is the sweden to  switzerland run?  how many borders?  how long due eggs stay fresh?

                                                                                                                         

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

HSUS is real, but you use them as a boogyman to push through a measure that could impact the life of people beyond the borders of your kingdom gst.  Some very good debate has pointed out to you over and over the problems with measure three, you just close your ears.  For you it's ag, ag, ag, ag, and nothing else matters.  I know, shocking that people would think of anything else.

At first you may think I am just poking you with the above statement.  That isn't the case.  What I am trying to do is shock you enough to think outside your small box.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

West you will have to forgive me I overlook your childish personalposts from here on out.

iluvswnd, you will have to forgive me for not continueing to argue with you when you seem to agree with the statement that animals rights laws particularily agenda driven ones will increase food costs but continue to demand that I prove it??? . 

plaisnman please realize between you and I, I am not the one dismissing HSUS's agendas and impact on hunting AND animal ag, you are so biased against the org sponsoring this measure no matter what you will not support this measure so please forgive me for not addressing anymore of your claims that simply are not true other than to point out why they are not true.

1. FACT, HSUS  right now as we discuss this has written, and is funding  a ballot measure here in ND that WILL impact animal agriculture. 

If you disagree with this statement you are blindly biased and siomply wrong.

2. FACT. Someone beleived this very same org HSUS (the worlds largest anti hunitng and anti animal agriculture organization) would be a "threat" to hunting to the point an amedment to protect hunting was included in our constitution. So please do not sugget that they are not just as much of a threat to animal agriculture.

If you disagree wiht this statement you are blindly biased

3. FACT, as far as we know there are NO media sources claiming measure 5 will prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture.

Can anyone provide one?

4. FACT as far as we know there are NO legislators claiming measure 5 will prevent them from creating and passing laws to regulate agriculture.

Can anyone provide one?

5. FACT the legislature itself retains the ability to overide ANY initiated measure so the legislature itself will ultimately determine wether they can regulate agriculture, not this measure.

This is simple fact that can not be disputed.

6. Does any one logically or reasonably truly actually beleive agriculture will be alllowed to exist unregulated in ND??? 

reasonable,logical, commons sense discussion. 

Tim said it best right from the start of this discussion.

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess. All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:
West you will have to forgive me I overlook your childish personalposts from here on out.

iluvswnd, you will have to forgive me for not continueing to argue with you when you seem to agree with the statement that animals rights laws particularily agenda driven ones will increase food costs but continue to demand that I prove it??? . 

plaisnman please realize between you and I, I am not the one dismissing HSUS's agendas and impact on hunting AND animal ag, you are so biased against the org sponsoring this measure no matter what you will not support this measure so please forgive me for not addressing anymore of your claims that simply are not true other than to point out why they are not true.

1. FACT, HSUS  right now as we discuss this has written, and is funding  a ballot measure here in ND that WILL impact animal agriculture. 

If you disagree with this statement you are blindly biased and siomply wrong.

2. FACT. Someone beleived this very same org HSUS (the worlds largest anti hunitng and anti animal agriculture organization) would be a "threat" to hunting to the point an amedment to protect hunting was included in our constitution. So please do not sugget that they are not just as much of a threat to animal agriculture.

If you disagree wiht this statement you are blindly biased

3. FACT, as far as we know there are NO media sources claiming measure 5 will prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture.

Can anyone provide one?

4. FACT as far as we know there are NO legislators claiming measure 5 will prevent them from creating and passing laws to regulate agriculture.

Can anyone provide one?

5. FACT the legislature itself retains the ability to overide ANY initiated measure so the legislature itself will ultimately determine wether they can regulate agriculture, not this measure.

This is simple fact that can not be disputed.

6. Does any one logically or reasonably truly actually beleive agriculture will be alllowed to exist unregulated in ND??? 

reasonable,logical, commons sense discussion. 

Tim said it best right from the start of this discussion.

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess. All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

If you think that's what I'm demanding then you are really missing what I'm saying. 

You've officially gotten to a point where you are so excited about bringing measure 5 into this thread on M3 that you've blended the two together in your posts....

I've been asking for a while that you leave M5 out of this. This is separate and you're trying to push M3 using M5 as leverage by making it sound like they're connected or associated.... they aren't. 

J

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

just to provide a source 

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-price-of-eggs-in-england  I beleive that roughly figures to about 5$/dozen

http://www.expatarrivals.com/germany/cost-of-living-in-germanyI beleive that roughly figures out to about $5/dozen  as well. 

 http://www.chacha.com/question/how-much-do-a-dozen-eggs-cost-in-the-united-states
$2.17/dozen 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:
West you will have to forgive me I overlook your childish personalposts from here on out.

iluvswnd, you will have to forgive me for not continueing to argue with you when you seem to agree with the statement that animals rights laws particularily agenda driven ones will increase food costs but continue to demand that I prove it??? . 

plaisnman please realize between you and I, I am not the one dismissing HSUS's agendas and impact on hunting AND animal ag, you are so biased against the org sponsoring this measure no matter what you will not support this measure so please forgive me for not addressing anymore of your claims that simply are not true other than to point out why they are not true.

1. FACT, HSUS  right now as we discuss this has written, and is funding  a ballot measure here in ND that WILL impact animal agriculture. 

If you disagree with this statement you are blindly biased and siomply wrong.

2. FACT. Someone beleived this very same org HSUS (the worlds largest anti hunitng and anti animal agriculture organization) would be a "threat" to hunting to the point an amedment to protect hunting was included in our constitution. So please do not sugget that they are not just as much of a threat to animal agriculture.

If you disagree wiht this statement you are blindly biased

3. FACT, as far as we know there are NO media sources claiming measure 5 will prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture.

Can anyone provide one?

4. FACT as far as we know there are NO legislators claiming measure 5 will prevent them from creating and passing laws to regulate agriculture.

Can anyone provide one?

5. FACT the legislature itself retains the ability to overide ANY initiated measure so the legislature itself will ultimately determine wether they can regulate agriculture, not this measure.

This is simple fact that can not be disputed.

6. Does any one logically or reasonably truly actually beleive agriculture will be alllowed to exist unregulated in ND??? 

reasonable,logical, commons sense discussion. 

Tim said it best right from the start of this discussion.

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess. All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

If you think that's what I'm demanding then you are really missing what I'm saying. 

You've officially gotten to a point where you are so excited about bringing measure 5 into this thread on M3 that you've blended the two together in your posts....

I've been asking for a while that you leave M5 out of this. This is separate and you're trying to push M3 using M5 as leverage by making it sound like they're connected or associated.... they aren't. 

So we get this right................................ You are claiming a measures whose sponsors and supporters have stated is about limiting animal rights radicals from engaging in passing law that will negatively affect animal agriculture has nothing to do with a measure written and funded by the worlds largest animal rights org with agendas to end animal agriculture that will directly impact animal agriculture right here in ND has nothing to do with one another???????

For some reason I don;t think that even measures up to espringers standard of logical thinking there chief.

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

just to provide a source 

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-price-of-eggs-in-england  I beleive that roughly figures to about 5$/dozen

http://www.expatarrivals.com/germany/cost-of-living-in-germanyI beleive that roughly figures out to about $5/dozen  as well. 

 http://www.chacha.com/question/how-much-do-a-dozen-eggs-cost-in-the-united-states
$2.17/dozen 

Do you seriously think that is what I'm asking for?

  1. You aren't providing a source for your claim regarding the price being high due to laws being passed. You are providing a source for the price of eggs, period. See the difference. (once again, I don't really care because I know this is true but my point is that your comments in general are skewed because you generalize a lot of things.
  2. Find a source that shows prices haven't gone up in a country because they have a law in place that prevents a law going into effect that would then have a negative effect on the price and availability of food.

Your whole argument basically hinges on #2. You are saying that we need this law because it will protect us from what has happened other places. It's alleged until you provide proof otherwise.


J

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:


So we get this right................................ You are claiming a measures whose sponsors and supporters have stated is about limiting animal rights radicals from engaging in passing law that will negatively affect animal agriculture has nothing to do with a measure written and funded by the worlds largest animal rights org with agendas to end animal agriculture that will directly impact animal agriculture right here in ND has nothing to do with one another???????

For some reason I don;t think that even measures up to espringers standard of logical thinking.

NO. What I'm saying is that I don't give two shits about what the sponsors and supporters say the measure means! I care about what the language of the measure means!

Are you really that naive that you will agree with a measure based on what the sponsors say that it will do?? If they said it was about allowing unicorns equal access to hay in the trough with the horses would you believe that? OR would you read the language and understand the interpretation of such language and base your stance off it?

Seriously.... 

J

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 Obviously food is going to be more expensive in any country that has strict animal rights laws. I asked you for a source because it's very easy to make generalized statements like "these policies and orgs" and "in countries banning certain ag practices." It moves your idea along and spreads it out there to anyone who still cares enough to click and read about the M3 thread here. However, it hurts your credibility in my eyes because you don't want to take the time to cite specific articles and sources you would rather just spew information 2nd-hand. 

I've seen enough of your bantering on here to know gst that one of your predominant tactics is to constantly question everything that anyone writes but whenever you make a statement they should have to go research and prove you wrong. If you want to make claims you should back them up, not challenge others to go back and do it for you. 

Okay can I ask if you beleive your own statement or is it still "alledged"?

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

gst your just spinning in circles again.  You answer peoples question with other questions rather than real life situations.  We don't buy your line.  We think your simply so narrow agricultural minded that anything to your perceived benefit has to be agreed on by everyone else.  We don't believe it, we don't buy it, we don't want it.  Do your really believe you have brought up anything that would really negate all the problems we can see with this extremely ,purposely poorly worded measure.  The people who wrote this are not stupid.  They wrote it very nebulous on purpose.  Why?  I can only surmise that it was to get by with some very destructive practices that society would not accept, and they/you/NDFB want to make an end run on their fellow citizens.  

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

5. FACT the legislature itself retains the ability to overide ANY initiated measure so the legislature itself will ultimately determine wether they can regulate agriculture, not this measure.

This is simple fact that can not be disputed.

Oh, I am pretty sure that some farmer, somewhere in ND, will take issue with an act of our very pro-agriculture legislature and this will end up in a court where the judge will be the determiner of how "abridged" is to be defined.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 Obviously food is going to be more expensive in any country that has strict animal rights laws. I asked you for a source because it's very easy to make generalized statements like "these policies and orgs" and "in countries banning certain ag practices." It moves your idea along and spreads it out there to anyone who still cares enough to click and read about the M3 thread here. However, it hurts your credibility in my eyes because you don't want to take the time to cite specific articles and sources you would rather just spew information 2nd-hand. 

I've seen enough of your bantering on here to know gst that one of your predominant tactics is to constantly question everything that anyone writes but whenever you make a statement they should have to go research and prove you wrong. If you want to make claims you should back them up, not challenge others to go back and do it for you. 

Okay can I ask if you beleive your own statement or is it still "alledged"?

You can jokingly pick apart sections of my post all day. I don't care. I see how serious you are about this measure. You aren't dumb, so I don't know why you think its so neat to highlight the parts that contradict without acknowledging the text in between. 

J

Wags86's picture
Wags86
Offline
Joined: 12/14/10

6. FACT - Bears like beats

 

 "I get what you're saying:  Like a sausage replica featuring a Polander holding a sacred illumination device." 

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Allen Said:
5. FACT the legislature itself retains the ability to overide ANY initiated measure so the legislature itself will ultimately determine wether they can regulate agriculture, not this measure.

This is simple fact that can not be disputed.

Oh, I am pretty sure that some farmer, somewhere in ND, will take issue with an act of our very pro-agriculture legislature and this will end up in a court where the judge will be the determiner of how "abridged" is to be defined.

anymore so thatn someonesuch as we see on here taking issue to the marriage amendment our state has??

Even if this would happen, a judge, unlike a few on here will indeed consider not just the second sentence and the word "abridge, but the entire amendment including the intent of the "right to engage".  But as it does not limit thelegislatures abilities aswritten, this is all suposition.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 Obviously food is going to be more expensive in any country that has strict animal rights laws. I asked you for a source because it's very easy to make generalized statements like "these policies and orgs" and "in countries banning certain ag practices." It moves your idea along and spreads it out there to anyone who still cares enough to click and read about the M3 thread here. However, it hurts your credibility in my eyes because you don't want to take the time to cite specific articles and sources you would rather just spew information 2nd-hand. 

I've seen enough of your bantering on here to know gst that one of your predominant tactics is to constantly question everything that anyone writes but whenever you make a statement they should have to go research and prove you wrong. If you want to make claims you should back them up, not challenge others to go back and do it for you. 

Okay can I ask if you beleive your own statement or is it still "alledged"?

You can jokingly pick apart sections of my post all day. I don't care. I see how serious you are about this measure. You aren't dumb, so I don't know why you think its so neat to highlight the parts that contradict without acknowledging the text in between. 

iluvswnd, I am not trying to jokingly pick apart one section of your posts. I simply do not understand why when you have yourself stated that strict animal rights laws will drive up food prices but yet demand proof when someone else says the same thing what you want.

Of course there can be many factors leading to Germany and England having twice as high  egg prices than the US INCLUDING what you and I both seem to agree on, strict animal rights laws. 

As to simply accepting what a sponsors says a measure will do, not in the least nor do I expect others to simply beleive what is said on an internet site without questioning people they actually  know and trust. I have good friends that collected signatures for this measure and I did not simply take their word but rather went to someone who as suggested has no dog in this fight whom I actually know and respect to get their opinion way back before this weas even on the ballot. I even shared some of my concernsregading it on Nodak before getting kicked off. As I have said you and espringers have never met me so I do not expect you to take my word anymore than I would take espringers word as a lawyer I have never met over a legal professional I know and trust. I think most people can understandthat as common sense.

People can simply read what has been posted, judge for themselves what is logical and what is not and make their decision accordingly.

I aqm not a sponsor nor did I collect signatures, but indeed I have a dog in this fight as the intent of the measure is to protect how I provide a living for my family from radical orgs such as HSUS.

I have stated several times if I beleived this measure would not allow the common sense regulation of agriculture by our elected representatives I would not support it.

I no more wish to have unregulated agriculture affecting me than anyone else does. If my well is contaminated by someone elses unregulated chemical use it will cost me directly thousands of dollars to fix so why would I support a measure designed to do so?  It simply is not logical.

 It is a large part of the reason I have asked people like you and espringers to provide proof that is irrefutable as to this claim and if done I would right here on this site state my opposition to this measure. 
 
Please forgive me if I simply do not accept people like plainsman or west nodaks claims based on what we know is their extreme bias agaist the ag org sponsoring this measure. I would like something a bit less questionable. Just as given the understanding of the history between FU and FB for decades that I have personally watched and most involved directly in agriculture know and understand, I do not place a lot of faith in thier analysis that is not tied to any factual proof. FU actually SUPPORTS a cattlemans org, R-Calf that has joined forces with HSUS to engage in a lawsuit agaist the beef checkoff. That to me sullies ANY credibility FU has against this measure.

We have a measure currently for vote in ND that was written and is funded by HSUS that will ban a modern agricultural practice. That is undeniable.

We have a measure which it's intent is to prevent these things from happening.

No media that I am aware of or that has been shared is claiming it will prevent regulation of ag.

No legislators that I am aware of or that has been shared  are saying it will prevent them from regulating ag.

One would think if that claim is true, one of these entities would be mentioning it outside of this site.

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Plainsman Said:
.  We don't buy your line.  We think your simply so narrow agricultural minded that anything to your perceived benefit has to be agreed on by everyone else.  We don't believe it, we don't buy it, we don't want it.  .  

Who is we?  You and the rest of tree hugers in Jamestown?  Who is we? You now are speaking for everyone?

Swing your HSUS  purse at the NDFB,   Recycler  

"they/you/NDFB want to make an end run on their fellow citizens."  

Who is they,part of we?       Bruce you couldn't carry gst's dirty socks but never give up a chance to bash him.    Bruce you are jelous.

You speak of truth, did you forge you wife S.......... name of the firsr HFH measure?

 

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

mauserG33-40 Said:

Plainsman Said:
.  We don't buy your line.  We think your simply so narrow agricultural minded that anything to your perceived benefit has to be agreed on by everyone else.  We don't believe it, we don't buy it, we don't want it.  .  

Who is we?  You and the rest of tree hugers in Jamestown?  Who is we? You now are speaking for everyone?

Swing your HSUS  purse at the NDFB,   Recycler  

"they/you/NDFB want to make an end run on their fellow citizens."  

Who is they,part of we?       Bruce you couldn't carry gst's dirty socks but never give up a chance to bash him.    Bruce you are jelous.

You speak of truth, did you forge you wife S.......... name of the firsr HFH measure?

Mauser, we're trying to debate a North Dakota constitutional amendment here. If you have any useful information regarding the topic at hand please feel free to hop in. If you just wanted to come on here and attack Plainsman for apparently attacking gst then I respectfully ask you to refrain from posting on this thread.

J

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

You can jokingly pick apart sections of my post all day. I don't care. I see how serious you are about this measure. You aren't dumb, so I don't know why you think its so neat to highlight the parts that contradict without acknowledging the text in between. 

iluvswnd, I am not trying to jokingly pick apart one section of your posts. I simply do not understand why when you have yourself stated that strict animal rights laws will drive up food prices but yet demand proof when someone else says the same thing what you want.

We'll agree on that portion and leave this alone for the rest of the debate then. 

Of course there can be many factors leading to Germany and England having twice as high  egg prices than the US INCLUDING what you and I both seem to agree on, strict animal rights laws. 

As to simply accepting what a sponsors says a measure will do, not in the least nor do I expect others to simply beleive what is said on an internet site without questioning people they actually  know and trust. I have good friends that collected signatures for this measure and I did not simply take their word but rather went to someone who as suggested has no dog in this fight whom I actually know and respect to get their opinion. As I have said you and espringers have never met me so I do not expect you to take my word anymore than I would take espringers as a lawyer I have never met over a legal professional I know and trust.

People can simply read what has been posted, judge for themselves what is logical and what is not and make their decision accordingly.

We have a measure currently for vote in ND that was written and is funded by HSUS that will ban a modern agricultural practice. That is undeniable.

We have a measure which it's intent is to prevent these things from happening.

No media that I am aware of or that has been shared is claiming it will prevent regulation of ag.

No legislators that I am aware of or that has been shared  are saying it will prevent them from regulating ag.

One would think if that claim is true, one of these entities would be mentioning it outside of this site.

I worry that a large part of our state is uninformed or misinformed on the measures they will be voting on. I think it would be real interesting to poll people and ask them if they could name the 5 measures on the ballot this November, I bet more people could name the two that got removed...

I only want what you want, for people to make an educated decision on their vote. 

I wouldn't give the media too much credit either...

J

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 
I worry that a large part of our state is uninformed or misinformed on the measures they will be voting on. I think it would be real interesting to poll people and ask them if they could name the 5 measures on the ballot this November, I bet more people could name the two that got removed...

I only want what you want, for people to make an educated decision on their vote. 

I wouldn't give the media too much credit either...

I agree whole heartedly with you on the fact most people do not take the time to inform themselves enough on what they are ask to vote on.. 

I really do beleive outside of a few discussions most of us would agree on more thanwe disagree on. 

And I do appreciate a civil discussion without personal crap. Thanks.

Pages