Measure #3

Pages

476 posts / 0 new
Last post
eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

espringers Said:

Farmboy Jeff Said:
How am I "confused" Espringers?  Enlighten me.

post #294 makes absolutely no sense when put in the context of ANYTHING i have ever written... that's how.  and most of your posts have made absolutely no sense in the context of anything any of us have written regarding our take on this measure.  so, suffice it to say, i believe enlightenment is not possible regarding this particular subject.  you have let your inherent bias for a measure that will no doubtedly benefit you personally cloud your judgment to a degree that goes way beyond anything i am capable of addressing.

I think that pretty much sums it up alright

 

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

espringers Said:

Farmboy Jeff Said:
How am I "confused" Espringers?  Enlighten me.

post #294 makes absolutely no sense when put in the context of ANYTHING i have ever written... that's how.  and most of your posts have made absolutely no sense in the context of anything any of us have written regarding our take on this measure.  so, suffice it to say, i believe enlightenment is not possible regarding this particular subject.  you have let your inherent bias for a measure that will no doubtedly benefit you personally cloud your judgment to a degree that goes way beyond anything i am capable of addressing.

inherent bias????????

From someone that has readily admitted nothing anyone else says can change his mind, that is pretty comical. Perhaps espringers you yoursleve are slightly confused as to what constitutes "inherent bias"

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

you are amazing really... a judge would change my mind.  i've said that numerous times.  and if a judge ruled against the way i am arguing in this debate, i would be a very happy man that i was in fact wrong and would happily admit it.  and a REALLY good argument from an attorney would do the same.  something other than "Joe, you just don't understand the english language.  You are reading the plain wording of this measure completely wrong.  Abridge doesn't mean what the dictionary says it means.  blah, blah, blah,..."

you see... i don't think you understand the word inherent.  Jeff's bias is a permanent and inseparable element of his character related to this particular thread because of his profession or the way he makes his living.  you see your and his bias are built into you when it comes to this particular subject because of what you do for a living and the fact that you stand to benefit immensely if this measure passes. 

i have a bias and so do the others who see things the same as me on this particular issue... but, it is not inherent to our character or person or this issue.  it is based solely on our opinions about what effect the plain wording of this measure will do.  BIG difference!  but, i suspect you already knew that and just started typing for the sake of typing.

oh... i had tried not to click on this thread after i finished a week or so ago.  but, since someone brought it to the top again... i've now read one or two of your responses from a while back.  in post #296 you said the following....
 

espringers Said:
.and, btw... you never did respond to the fact that abridge does not mean anything near what you keep claiming it does in the examples you give... it does not mean "disallow completely". 

GST Said:  espriners, please show where have I ever suggested what you claim above that I have emboldened out of your statement???

oh how quickly we forget....please see the following quote directly from your own fingers on post #284:

GST SAid:  "Iluvswnd, exactly what did I not read. You are talking about the inability to regulate agriculture in the case of farmer Jim if this measure passes. No matter what example you wish to use, it comes back to the same thing as long as the practice is not disallowed completely it can be regulated by the state. "

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

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

Don't let gabe get to ya espringers.  He has the debating prowess of a cinder block.  What everyone should know is that measure 3 has so many hidden agendas in it that not even the supporters have a clue....including the super rancher himself.

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

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

espringers I get the definition of "inherent", plaisnamn west ect... have an "inherent" bias against this measure becuase of their "inherent" bias against the organization that sponsored it. Your "inherent" bias is against anything that you beleive will negatively affect your sportsman opportunities, no different than what you claim is my "inherent" bias against anything I beleive will affect how I make my livlihood. NO difference. .

This last post (unless I have missed it before) is the FIRST time you have alluded to ANYONE being able to change your mind. In fact you have specifically said prior no one would be able to. So please do not try to dismiss your "bias" against this measure.

And  espringers where exactly in your quote of what I wrote does it reference the part you emboldened as being the definition or meaning of "abridge"?  You apparently do not seem to realize the part you emboldened was in reference to the portion of the measure you seem to consistantly avoid recognizing that includes the word "engage".

Espringers if one is  "being disallowed completely" from using the practice as he not been denied the right to "engage" in the practice?  

Try to keep up here espringers and realize the first sentence in the measure actually means something.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09
y on 10/24/2012 3:48 PM | Reply #129 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 11/03/2002
Location: ND

gst Said:
Indeed he did, I was mistaken.

At least I have suggested a possibility of open mindedness unlike yourself.

 

west, prove to me with something more than an "inherently biased" opinion this measure will prevent the legislature from passing laws to regulate agriculture as you and others have claims (even though the media and legislators have not) and I will gladly admit I was wrong and not support this measure as worded.

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

how in the world would this affect my activities as a sportsman?  my opinion has nothing to do with me being a sportsman.  my opinion is based solely on my understanding of the english language and the fact that if i am right i believe it will be bad for ALL north dakotans.  so, i guess i have an inherent bias as a north dakotan? 

i have said time and time again that i will agree with whatever decision is handed down by our supreme court.  until that is done, it would take one helluva an explanation from a fellow attorney to change my mind. 

your words above are that this measure will not prevent regulation "as long as the practice is not disallowed completely."  given the wording of the 2nd sentence of this measure:  

"No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices ."

and the definition of abridge, i don't see how you can't be arguing it any other way. 

if, for example, farmer joe can't open his field tiles each spring until lets say May 1, isn't it safe to say we have abridged (or diminished) his right to employ the modern agricultural technology of field tliling?  even though we haven't completely disallowed the practice? 

again you ask us to prove a negative... we simply can not do that with 100% certainty until the supreme court rules one way or another.  and you certainly can not either.  but, even if my argument and the arguments of the other inherently biased individuals who see it my way has even a small chance of being right (which i think even you would concede), then wouldn't it be prudent to vote NO?  rather than take that chance?  you still have never offered any reasonable response to this concern.

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

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

espringers Said:
how in the world would this affect my activities as a sportsman?  my opinion has nothing to do with me being a sportsman.  my opinion is based solely on my understanding of the english language and the fact that if i am right i believe it will be bad for ALL north dakotans.  so, i guess i have an inherent bias as a north dakotan? 

i have said time and time again that i will agree with whatever decision is handed down by our supreme court.  until that is done, it would take one helluva an explanation from a fellow attorney to change my mind. 

your words above are that this measure will not prevent regulation "as long as the practice is not disallowed completely."  given the wording of the 2nd sentence of this measure:  

"No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices ."

and the definition of abridge, i don't see how you can't be arguing it any other way. 

if, for example, farmer joe can't open his field tiles each spring until lets say May 1, isn't it safe to say we have abridged (or diminished) his right to employ the modern agricultural technology of field tliling?  even though we haven't completely disallowed the practice? 

again you ask us to prove a negative... we simply can not do that with 100% certainty until the supreme court rules one way or another.  and you certainly can not either.  but, even if my argument and the arguments of the other inherently biased individuals who see it my way has even a small chance of being right (which i think even you would concede), then wouldn't it be prudent to vote NO?  rather than take that chance?  you still have never offered any reasonable response to this concern.

your using the same exact argument against him that he used against measure 2 (property taxes) last June.  I find this funny as hell. 

 

Farmboy Jeff's picture
Farmboy Jeff
Offline
Joined: 10/10/12

Dear Espringers,

We have never met before.  You know nothing about me and my character.  Yet you type the following:

"Jeff's bias is a permanent and inseparable element of his character related to this particular thread because of his profession or the way he makes his living."

You don't know me.  You don't know my profession.  Yet you sit here and try to judge me because I assisted with a ballot measure initiative to help protect farming and ranching practices?

Wow.


Farmboy Jeff's picture
Farmboy Jeff
Offline
Joined: 10/10/12

Sportsman,

Go back through the thread and read it.  I offered to put together a meeting if this site could produce at least a handful of people who would care enough and be open minded enough to attend.  I got one person to commit, and excuses from others as to why they wouldn't attend.  I'm not going to spend my hard-earned dollars to have attorneys attend a meeting for one person.  

I hope you can understand that.  

Farmboy Jeff's picture
Farmboy Jeff
Offline
Joined: 10/10/12

 wstnodak,

Please give me examples of the "hidden agendas" associated with Measure 3.

Thanks.

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

espringers wrote,

i have said time and time again that i will agree with whatever decision is handed down by our supreme court.  until that is done, it would take one helluva an explanation from a fellow attorney to change my mind. 

As you know there are three branches of government. Executive, legislative and judicial. Sometimes it happens that the legislature passes a law and later the judicial branch determines that it is unconstitutional.

The courts do not however make determinations on laws, measures and amendments until after they have passed. There is only one way this amendment would come before the Supreme Court.  

After this amendment passes and if the court would like to take a look at it and it then passes muster.........other states will be drafting one of their own. I like it. 

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

Fritz, I think u are confused on how this measure wouuldikely end up in front of the court. It won't be challenging the constitutionality of the measure to see if it "passes muster". It will be in the form of challenges to other laws and regulations arguing the laws and/ or regulations are unconstitutional because they abridge someone's "right to engage in a modern agricultural, farming or ranching technology"... And is therefore unconstitutional because it violates the wording of this new constitutional amendment. If it is applied as broadly as I fear it will be, no states would be lining up to pass similar legislation. And nd would probably start working on repealling it.

Jeff, u obviously fail to understand the context of that particular discussion on what inherent meant.

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

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

I counted 3 for sure....  Anyways if you do make it happen let us know the date and time.

 

Farmboy Jeff Said:
Sportsman,

Go back through the thread and read it.  I offered to put together a meeting if this site could produce at least a handful of people who would care enough and be open minded enough to attend.  I got one person to commit, and excuses from others as to why they wouldn't attend.  I'm not going to spend my hard-earned dollars to have attorneys attend a meeting for one person.  

I hope you can understand that.  

J

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

Forgot bout u iluvs... That's 4 I think.

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

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

 
 

 


espringers Said:
how in the world would this affect my activities as a sportsman?  my opinion has nothing to do with me being a sportsman.  my opinion is based solely on my understanding of the english language and the fact that if i am right i believe it will be bad for ALL north dakotans.  so, i guess i have an inherent bias as a north dakotan? 

i have said time and time again that i will agree with whatever decision is handed down by our supreme court.  until that is done, it would take one helluva an explanation from a fellow attorney to change my mind. 

your words above are that this measure will not prevent regulation "as long as the practice is not disallowed completely."  given the wording of the 2nd sentence of this measure:  

"No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices ."

and the definition of abridge, i don't see how you can't be arguing it any other way. 

if, for example, farmer joe can't open his field tiles each spring until lets say May 1, isn't it safe to say we have abridged (or diminished) his right to employ the modern agricultural technology of field tliling?  even though we haven't completely disallowed the practice? 

again you ask us to prove a negative... we simply can not do that with 100% certainty until the supreme court rules one way or another.  and you certainly can not either.  but, even if my argument and the arguments of the other inherently biased individuals who see it my way has even a small chance of being right (which i think even you would concede), then wouldn't it be prudent to vote NO?  rather than take that chance?  you still have never offered any reasonable response to this concern.

Your example does not prevent the "right" to engage espringers. You continue to over look that segment of this measure to fit your arguement.

No media has claimed what you and others are, have any legislators claimed what you and a handful of people on here have??? Andyet you wish everyone to simply accept your claims as fact?????

If you can not "prove" what you are claiming, please explain why it should be given any due consideration when the media and the very legislators that are supposedly having their hands tied by this measure as you claim are not supporting what you state???

Espringers can you provide one single media story on such a precedence setting claim as a constitutional amendment that will end the regulation of agriculture??? Come on man surely their is some junior reporter trying to win his cub badge that supports your claims with a fact based story???  

And indeed espringers if one was to challenge this amendment, one could do it very directly given the verbage contained in our constitution already. If what you say is true espringers, would it not be a "special immunity" from regulation?

From our state constitution
Section 21.
No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens.

Espringers given the first sentence in this previously engaged section of our constitution, wouldn;t the legislature itself retain the right to "alter, revoke or repeal" any "special immunities" that "grant" agriculture a pass from being regulated?

Perhaps the media and legislators themselves understand this and so are not wasting the ND voters time making unprovable claims such as you and a small handful of others are doing.

So now espringers please explain given the rather large print as well as underlined portion of what is already contained in our state Constituion, how the legislature will not retain the power to regulate agriculture?

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

U totally blew my mind dude... U win... But do a search... U will find more than a few articles/editorials in state publications to keep u busy since u won't have me to argue with anymore.

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

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

espringers, you don;t seem to understand, it is not about "winning" or losing, it is about having factual informaion to make your mind up aboout these measures.

All that has ever been asked was that you and the small handful of people prove the claims you make that this measure would not allow the legislature to regulate agriculture anymore if it passed.

You provided nothing and actually admitted you could not prove what you claim.

Yet you have been provided a couple of different examples from within our constitution itself of why and how the legisature itself would and can prevent your claims from happening.

So people have been able to read the discussion and make their own mind up. That right there is the "win".

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

So... I'm lost.

Should I vote yes or no?

 

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

gst Said:
espringers, you don;t seem to understand, it is not about "winning" or losing, it is about having factual informaion to make your mind up aboout these measures.

All that has ever been asked was that you and the small handful of people prove the claims you make that this measure would not allow the legislature to regulate agriculture anymore if it passed.

You provided nothing and actually admitted you could not prove what you claim.

Yet you have been provided a couple of different examples from within our constitution itself of why and how the legisature itself would and can prevent your claims from happening.

So people have been able to read the discussion and make their own mind up. That right there is the "win".

And all that has ever been asked of you, gabe, is to prove the claims you make that this measure does NOT have the potential to do the things we say.  You say, "uhhh well i talked to a smart guy and he said it was a good one....uhhhh....so I guess you will just have to trust us."  Bullshit gabe.  Doesn't work for me or others.  You continually ask for "proof".  How in sams hell can a guy prove anything about such a bullshit and poorly written measure like measure 3.

So now YOU PROVE that what we say about measure 3 is complete lies gabe.  Come on big fella super rancher...lets hear it.

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

sportsman  |'s picture
sportsman |
Offline
Joined: 3/10/09

Farmboy Jeff Said:
Sportsman,

Go back through the thread and read it.  I offered to put together a meeting if this site could produce at least a handful of people who would care enough and be open minded enough to attend.  I got one person to commit, and excuses from others as to why they wouldn't attend.  I'm not going to spend my hard-earned dollars to have attorneys attend a meeting for one person.  

I hope you can understand that.  

You never said where, when or what time you could set it up for. Hard to get people to commit to an unknown time and place.

It's not that bad.

sportsman  |'s picture
sportsman |
Offline
Joined: 3/10/09

gst Said:

Section 21.
No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;
nor shall any citizen or class of citizens be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens.
 

 

From our state constitution

Espringers given the first sentence in this previously engaged section of our constitution, wouldn;t the legislature itself retain the right to "alter, revoke or repeal" any "special immunities" that "grant" agriculture a pass from being regulated?

Perhaps the media and legislators themselves understand this and so are not wasting the ND voters time making unprovable claims such as you and a small handful of others are doing.

So now espringers please explain given the rather large print as well as underlined portion of what is already contained in our state Constituion, how the legislature will not retain the power to regulate agriculture?

Seems this Measure violates the granting of special priveleges to a certain group of citizens portion. Or is a "class" of citizens defined different than those of certain occupations?

It's not that bad.

Crackshot.'s picture
Crackshot.
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/09

322 coments on something that should be simple as pie ??  ,  These measures should be written in black and white with no gray areas  or thrown out of the system.   there should be 3 choices on measures when you are voting

  Yes, No, and I am not sure.   

 

 

 

 

Life is good
 

 

 

 

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

 

gst Said:
espringers, you don;t seem to understand, it is not about "winning" or losing, it is about having factual informaion to make your mind up aboout these measures.

Have you read any responses to any debates you've had on here? If you weren't trying to "win" then your post count would be 1/4 of what it is.

All that has ever been asked was that you and the small handful of people prove the claims you make that this measure would not allow the legislature to regulate agriculture anymore if it passed.

gst, I already told you that the burden of proof does not lie on us. You are supporting the measure and it's language so the burden of proof is on you to prove that it will do what it says, not on those who question it. 

You provided nothing and actually admitted you could not prove what you claim.

Nor can you... How is this a valid argument????

Yet you have been provided a couple of different examples from within our constitution itself of why and how the legisature itself would and can prevent your claims from happening.

So people have been able to read the discussion and make their own mind up. That right there is the "win".

I think we all agree here. That's why this debate needs guys like us on the other side of the fence to keep your ramblings in check.  (I used your winky faces in your honor)

J

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

gst Said:
espringers I get the definition of "inherent", plaisnamn west ect... have an "inherent" bias against this measure becuase of their "inherent" bias against the organization that sponsored it.

Show me proof where I have shown "bias" against the org. you are talking about gabe.

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

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

gst Said:

y on 10/24/2012 3:48 PM | Reply #129 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 11/03/2002
Location: ND
gst Said:
Indeed he did, I was mistaken.

At least I have suggested a possibility of open mindedness unlike yourself.

 

west, prove to me with something more than an "inherently biased" opinion this measure will prevent the legislature from passing laws to regulate agriculture as you and others have claims (even though the media and legislators have not) and I will gladly admit I was wrong and not support this measure as worded.

Gabe, prove to me with something more than an "inherently biased" opinion this measure will NOT make it damn near impossible to regulate a "modern" farming/ranching practice in the future.  And don't even think about giving me the ol, "well I talked to a smart guy" speach.

Further more, you talk about bias gabe.  Do not forget we stand on the same front on measure 5.  Could that possibly prove that maybe there is some common sense and a "lack there of" of bias on my part and little to no common sense and full tilt bias on your part?

BTW, I still cannot for the life of me believe how much time you spend posting on this site!haha  Holy crap what I would give to have your free time!

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

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
espringers I get the definition of "inherent", plaisnamn west ect... have an "inherent" bias against this measure becuase of their "inherent" bias against the organization that sponsored it.

You like to argue with me don't you Gabe!  Anyway, I am against it because of the same reason you have been against things that are no pro ag.  That's because it's to nebulous.

Bias:  Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives.

I think NDFB is radical and there is no equally valid alternative. 

You run out of people to argue with so now you want me to help you out with that.  No thanks.  When I had not posted on this subject for a long time your a dumb a$$ to try bring me back into it.  So the short post above to help you with your whine.  Now we only need the comments from the Jihadist to make this complete.

Edit:  Oh, like westnodak I support a no on measure 5.   If your  sane you will look for someone else to unleash on.

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

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:
espringers, you don;t seem to understand, it is not about "winning" or losing, it is about having factual informaion to make your mind up aboout these measures.

All that has ever been asked was that you and the small handful of people prove the claims you make that this measure would not allow the legislature to regulate agriculture anymore if it passed.

You provided nothing and actually admitted you could not prove what you claim.

Yet you have been provided a couple of different examples from within our constitution itself of why and how the legisature itself would and can prevent your claims from happening.

So people have been able to read the discussion and make their own mind up. That right there is the "win".

And all that has ever been asked of you, gabe, is to prove the claims you make that this measure does NOT have the potential to do the things we say.  You say, "uhhh well i talked to a smart guy and he said it was a good one....uhhhh....so I guess you will just have to trust us."  Bullshit gabe.  Doesn't work for me or others.  You continually ask for "proof".  How in sams hell can a guy prove anything about such a bullshit and poorly written measure like measure 3.

So now YOU PROVE that what we say about measure 3 is complete lies gabe.  Come on big fella super rancher...lets hear it.

West you certainly do not have to beleive what I say, or even what some "smart guy" may say, but perhaps you can trust what is wrote in our State Constitution giving the legislature overiding authority.

From our state constitution
Section 21.
No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens.
 

Now if you wish to argue with the writings of the States constitution,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, people can  place whatever credibility they wish on your claims.  Me,  I choose to beleive the writing of our Constitution over the personally biased ramblings of a handful of people on internet sites.

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

sportsman | Said:

gst Said:

Section 21.
No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;
nor shall any citizen or class of citizens be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens.
 

 

From our state constitution

Espringers given the first sentence in this previously engaged section of our constitution, wouldn;t the legislature itself retain the right to "alter, revoke or repeal" any "special immunities" that "grant" agriculture a pass from being regulated?

Perhaps the media and legislators themselves understand this and so are not wasting the ND voters time making unprovable claims such as you and a small handful of others are doing.

So now espringers please explain given the rather large print as well as underlined portion of what is already contained in our state Constituion, how the legislature will not retain the power to regulate agriculture?

Seems this Measure violates the granting of special priveleges to a certain group of citizens portion. Or is a "class" of citizens defined different than those of certain occupations?

sportsman, This was a question I asked early on over on Nodak regarding this measure. So if there will be a challenge, despite what espringers claims, it might very well directly arise form this section of our costitution not over a regulation imposed.

But one could possibly also argue this clause could also give standing to challenge the marriage amendment as well.??????

Now I would guess if this is challenged, they would likely have to strike the identifying descriptors "farmers and ranchers" from the language so that it would allow ANYONE the right to engage rather than an indentified "class of citizens" if indeed farmers and ranchers could be indentified as a "class of citizen".

I simply  do not know.

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

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:
espringers I get the definition of "inherent", plaisnamn west ect... have an "inherent" bias against this measure becuase of their "inherent" bias against the organization that sponsored it.

Show me proof where I have shown "bias" against the org. you are talking about gabe.

If someone actually cares, they can go to Nodak and read thru any of the multiple threads and your comments there.

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

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

y on 10/24/2012 3:48 PM | Reply #129 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 11/03/2002
Location: ND
gst Said:
Indeed he did, I was mistaken.

At least I have suggested a possibility of open mindedness unlike yourself.

 

west, prove to me with something more than an "inherently biased" opinion this measure will prevent the legislature from passing laws to regulate agriculture as you and others have claims (even though the media and legislators have not) and I will gladly admit I was wrong and not support this measure as worded.

Gabe, prove to me with something more than an "inherently biased" opinion this measure will NOT make it damn near impossible to regulate a "modern" farming/ranching practice in the future.  And don't even think about giving me the ol, "well I talked to a smart guy" speach.

Further more, you talk about bias gabe.  Do not forget we stand on the same front on measure 5.  Could that possibly prove that maybe there is some common sense and a "lack there of" of bias on my part and little to no common sense and full tilt bias on your part?

BTW, I still cannot for the life of me believe how much time you spend posting on this site!haha  Holy crap what I would give to have your free time!

Try working a little harder when you do work west!

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

iluvswnd,
My claim has been that people's claim this measure will prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture simply is not true or factual.

Why is written right into our very own state costitution. They are not my words, they are not a lawyers interpretation or someones opinion. They are BLACK AND WHITE words written for the specific purpose of preventing what you claim in our constitution.

I do not know how much clearer one can be,

From our state constitution
Section 21.
No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens.

If you wish to continue making your claim please explain HOW given this language, the "immunity" from the legislature creating regulation over agriculture you calim will be "granted" thru this measure will happen.  

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

plainsamn, not argueing, simply pointing to your "inherent bias" against this org based on your own many comments such as those comparing them to the Posse Comitatus and referencing them as a threat to govt officials. You do remember those don;t you?

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

gst Said:
plainsamn, not argueing, simply pointing to your "inherent bias" against this org based on your own many comments such as those comparing them to the Posse Comitatus and referencing them as a threat to govt officials. You do remember those don;t you?

Yes I do.  I based that on three things.  Some of the radical things they propose like abolishing agriculture regulations which you said was just a wish list.  It looks to me like they are going for it with measure 3.  Second I based it on some radical people right on this site who hate everything government except for the military which they were in.  Third I based it on the article which described the elements required to be considered on their list.  Based on that I think Farm Bureau fits.  At least talking to some of it's members it fit.  If people don't like that then don't show hate in most of their posts.

gst do you also remember that I said I perhaps agreed with 90% of Farm Bureaus thoughts, but had a very hard time with some that went to far?  Do you remember me telling you my parents and family belonged to Farm Bureau when we still had the farm?  Do you remember me asking for a list of those regulations you would like to see abolished because I said I perhaps would agree with many of them and could support abolishment?  Remember the Farm Bureau rep (at least you said he was) that would not list a single regulation he wanted abolished?  Do you remember me saying I was talking to a very reasonable Farm Bureau member in our church that I put a lot of trust in?

Currently my blood relatives and some inlaws agree with Farm Bureau agendas.  Some inlaws agree with Farmers Union agendas.  Oh, and some still belong to the North Dakota Stockmens Association and have registered brands.     So tell me again gst how bias I am.  Your right, I am bias for agriculture, but have limits.
 
If I remember right you told me that because I didn't like some ag practices that I was an ag basher.  Would you say that because you don't like some sportsmens practices you are a sportsmens basher?  Put it on the other foot and look at it gst.  That is what an open mind is, and you have not shown that in the years I have talked with you.

gst do you think measure 5 is to nebulous?  Do you think the HFH measure was to nebulous?  What makes measure 3 different other than it's for you?  Answer: it's the same it just benefits you gst and dumps on the rest of us. 

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

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:
espringers I get the definition of "inherent", plaisnamn west ect... have an "inherent" bias against this measure becuase of their "inherent" bias against the organization that sponsored it.

Show me proof where I have shown "bias" against the org. you are talking about gabe.

If someone actually cares, they can go to Nodak and read thru any of the multiple threads and your comments there.

So you're not 100% sure?  Sounds like a theme we have going here.

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

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

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

y on 10/24/2012 3:48 PM | Reply #129 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 11/03/2002
Location: ND
gst Said:
Indeed he did, I was mistaken.

At least I have suggested a possibility of open mindedness unlike yourself.

 

west, prove to me with something more than an "inherently biased" opinion this measure will prevent the legislature from passing laws to regulate agriculture as you and others have claims (even though the media and legislators have not) and I will gladly admit I was wrong and not support this measure as worded.

Gabe, prove to me with something more than an "inherently biased" opinion this measure will NOT make it damn near impossible to regulate a "modern" farming/ranching practice in the future.  And don't even think about giving me the ol, "well I talked to a smart guy" speach.

Further more, you talk about bias gabe.  Do not forget we stand on the same front on measure 5.  Could that possibly prove that maybe there is some common sense and a "lack there of" of bias on my part and little to no common sense and full tilt bias on your part?

BTW, I still cannot for the life of me believe how much time you spend posting on this site!haha  Holy crap what I would give to have your free time!

Try working a little harder when you do work west!

Yep thats gotta be it.haha  Tell ya what.  You come around sometime and we'll work side by side in whatever you wanna do and we'll see who works harder  Besides, I could use a little cheap child labor for a day.

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

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

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:
espringers, you don;t seem to understand, it is not about "winning" or losing, it is about having factual informaion to make your mind up aboout these measures.

All that has ever been asked was that you and the small handful of people prove the claims you make that this measure would not allow the legislature to regulate agriculture anymore if it passed.

You provided nothing and actually admitted you could not prove what you claim.

Yet you have been provided a couple of different examples from within our constitution itself of why and how the legisature itself would and can prevent your claims from happening.

So people have been able to read the discussion and make their own mind up. That right there is the "win".

And all that has ever been asked of you, gabe, is to prove the claims you make that this measure does NOT have the potential to do the things we say.  You say, "uhhh well i talked to a smart guy and he said it was a good one....uhhhh....so I guess you will just have to trust us."  Bullshit gabe.  Doesn't work for me or others.  You continually ask for "proof".  How in sams hell can a guy prove anything about such a bullshit and poorly written measure like measure 3.

So now YOU PROVE that what we say about measure 3 is complete lies gabe.  Come on big fella super rancher...lets hear it.

West you certainly do not have to beleive what I say, or even what some "smart guy" may say, but perhaps you can trust what is wrote in our State Constitution giving the legislature overiding authority.

From our state constitution
Section 21.
No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens.
 

Now if you wish to argue with the writings of the States constitution,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, people can  place whatever credibility they wish on your claims.  Me,  I choose to beleive the writing of our Constitution over the personally biased ramblings of a handful of people on internet sites.

If this is the case gabe then tell me WHY even bother with this measure.  Whats it going to do or what does it have the potential to do....that is the question NO ONE can answer....not even you.  Becasue you cannot answer that one question I would say we all have pretty solid ground to stand on in our worries.

But I spose we should just "trust" you...or better yet we should just "trust" your so called "smart" friends right?

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

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

west, plainsamn, if anyone actually cares they can go to Nodak and look at any number of threads you guys posted on about NDFB and make up their own minds. West as ledfed and plainsman as himself.

West why the personal animousity?  Did I used to date your sister or something ???

Why bother with the "right to hunt" amendment?

Why bother with the right of marriage between a man and woman amendment???

If you choose not to beleive what is written in our constitution, hey whatever, most reasonable people without such an admitted personal hatred can decide for themselves.

For the umpteenth time the intent of this measure is to try and prevent exactly what is happening with measure 5. Banning an agricultural practice of horse slaughter here in ND.

The "intent" of my commmetns is to show those making claims as to what this measure will do in preventing the legislature from regulating agriculture simply are not true. 

And while you wish to argue what I might say, you can not dispute what is CLEARLY  aldeady written in our states constitution.
 

.

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

gst Said:

For the umpteenth time the intent of this measure is to try and prevent exactly what is happening with measure 5. Banning an agricultural practice of horse slaughter here in ND.

.

Then why farming in the wording of the measure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

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

gst Said:

West why the personal animousity?  Did I used to date your sister or something ???

.

No personal animosity gabe.  I just don't believe in most of your ideologies and how you come across as the "only" answer.  Its arrogant, condescending and childish and if thats the way you wish to converse and I have to dip to that level to be heard by you then so be it.  Absolutely 0 compromise.  I just thank the big guy upstairs that 99% of the rest of the producers in the state don't have your attitude as we would all be shit out of luck.

You call it animosity.  It's calling a spade a spade as far as I'm concerned. 

No on measure 5 and No on measure 3.

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

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

Where the hell have u guys been for the last 3-4 days. And gst... U best research section 21 or article 1 and get some knowledge of what purpose it serves before u start randomly plucking pieces from our constitution to make ur argument. And Jeff, when is this meeting? I know u got my pm. I've gotten no response yet. And who are the attorneys I am meeting with?

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

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

wstnodak said,

No personal animosity gabe.  I just don't believe in most of your ideologies and how you come across as the "only" answer.  Its arrogant, condescending and childish and if thats the way you wish to converse and I have to dip to that level to be heard by you then so be it.  Absolutely 0 compromise.  I just thank the big guy upstairs that 99% of the rest of the producers in the state don't have your attitude as we would all be shit out of luck.

You call it animosity.  It's calling a spade a spade as far as I'm concerned. 

No on measure 5 and No on measure 3.

It would seem you konw who Gabe is but we do not know who you are. Who has more credabilty, "someone who puts their name/ face and reputation behind what they say or someone such as yourself yelling from from behind the dumpster?"

wtnodak, you said on FBO that you graduated from Killdeer in 1998. OK, which one are you???

  
Mike Conner,  Chad Dutchak,  Sheldon Fettig, Shane Hartman,  Jamie Jellesad,  Ross Jepson, Jimmy Jeske, Chris Kershisnik,  Cade Kralicek, Jared Kubik,  Erik Kukla, Jeff Landblom, Jason Lawson, Tanner Monroe, Dusty Oelke, Jahn Pachl, Josh Prohribnak, Wallace Twist

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

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

West why the personal animousity?  Did I used to date your sister or something ???

.

No personal animosity gabe.  I just don't believe in most of your ideologies and how you come across as the "only" answer.  Its arrogant, condescending and childish and if thats the way you wish to converse and I have to dip to that level to be heard by you then so be it.  Absolutely 0 compromise.  I just thank the big guy upstairs that 99% of the rest of the producers in the state don't have your attitude as we would all be shit out of luck.

You call it animosity.  It's calling a spade a spade as far as I'm concerned. 

No on measure 5 and No on measure 3.

west/ledfed, perhaps as people delve thru the posts on Nodak they will run across the one where you admitted "hating" me. But hey no personal animousity here eh?

0 compromise?????? I have stated several times on two different sites if you can prove factually your claims I would not support this measure and state so on this site. Can you show where you have ever indicated you would support it?

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

espringers Said:
Where the hell have u guys been for the last 3-4 days. And gst... U best research section 21 or article 1 and get some knowledge of what purpose it serves before u start randomly plucking pieces from our constitution to make ur argument. And Jeff, when is this meeting? I know u got my pm. I've gotten no response yet. And who are the attorneys I am meeting with?

espringers, so educate us to what section 21 of our constitution is written for? Does it do something other than what it states? Does it not give the legislature the overiding athuority it states?

Please explain espringers how this section will not prevent the claim you make this measure will disallow the legislature from regulating agriculture.

StevePike's picture
StevePike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/4/02

 

gst Said:
espringers, so educate us to what section 21 of our constitution is written for? Does it do something other than what it states? Does it not give the legislature the overiding athuority it states? 

If anyone could explain how constitutional measures, that are at odds with each other, work and if there is a precedence in applying them, that would be great.

You can't aim a duck to death.

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

sportsman | Said:

gst Said:

Section 21.
No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;
nor shall any citizen or class of citizens be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens.
 

 

From our state constitution

Espringers given the first sentence in this previously engaged section of our constitution, wouldn;t the legislature itself retain the right to "alter, revoke or repeal" any "special immunities" that "grant" agriculture a pass from being regulated?

Perhaps the media and legislators themselves understand this and so are not wasting the ND voters time making unprovable claims such as you and a small handful of others are doing.

So now espringers please explain given the rather large print as well as underlined portion of what is already contained in our state Constituion, how the legislature will not retain the power to regulate agriculture?

Seems this Measure violates the granting of special priveleges to a certain group of citizens portion. Or is a "class" of citizens defined different than those of certain occupations?

this certainly wouldn't be the first time farmers were granted special privileges

 

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

gst wrote,

west/ledfed, perhaps as people delve thru the posts on Nodak they will run across the one where you admitted "hating" me. But hey no personal animousity here eh?

I went over and delved through some old posts on Nodakouthouse. Came to the realization that wstnodak aka leadfed (Plainsmans hyena) made his last post over there several months ago at the very same time gst was shown the door.

I can't discern if gst has a groupie or a stalker? 

Farmboy Jeff's picture
Farmboy Jeff
Offline
Joined: 10/10/12

 Espringers,

Can you read?  If so, go back and read this thread.  I told you I would arrange for a meeting if you can find a handful of people who will attend.  A handful to me is at least 5.  Somebody is telling me there are 3 who are interested in meeting.  3 is not 5.  I'm a busy man.  I won't spend my valuable time and money arranging a meeting for only 3 people.  And I'm not even certain there are 3.  

This website is kind of a joke.  A bunch of people who take shots at each other anonymously, but who seem to care very little about real issues and the truth.

i'm encouraging a yes vote on Measure 3 because this measure came along LONG before Measure 5 did, and as a member of the sponsoring committee...I can tell you Measure 3 was developed specifically to prevent HSUS and PETA from destroying our agriculture industry.  

Farmboy Jeff's picture
Farmboy Jeff
Offline
Joined: 10/10/12

Sportsman,

Like I have now said SEVERAL times...I would need to have a handful of people who are interested enough in attending a meeting, BEFORE I would set anything up.  I'm not wasting my precious time and money to set it up for 3 guys.  And at this point, I don't think you even have 3.  This site has so few people participating that it isn't really helpful.  Just a few guys who go back and forth not really trying to have a helpful/informative dialogue.  But rather, trying to act like they are smarter than each other.  It's kind of...a joke.

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Too much talking.  "NO"

Same for 5.

 Nuke the Whales

Pages