Measure #3

Pages

476 posts / 0 new
Last post
BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

So it's unanimous. Yes on 1. No on 2-5. Good talk, people. Good talk.

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

 That's a YES on 3.  I put in a LOT of work to collect over 3,700 signatures by myself.  I worked straight through 9 weekends this summer because I know in my heart it is the right thing that will keep HSUS and PETA out of our state.  I'm glad that my efforts will also help sportsman like myself and many of you because these groups are not just anti-farming/ranching, but anti-hunting and anti-meat.  Vote whatever way you wish.  I'm voting YES because it is definitely going to pass, because the effort is sincere and we poured our hearts into it.  I will ALWAYS side with Ag and sportsman interests.  Thank you to those who agree and who are voting YES on 3.  It Is going to pass.

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

 

BringingTheRain Said:
So it's unanimous. Yes on 1. No on 2-5. Good talk, people. Good talk.

Why no on 2? 1& 2 are just basically housekeeping measures, no? 

J

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

It could be during your work hours. Heck, as  executive Vice President of the farm bureau you would probably even be on the clock while you host it. 

Farmboy Jeff Said:
 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.  

J

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

iluvswnd Said:
 

BringingTheRain Said:
So it's unanimous. Yes on 1. No on 2-5. Good talk, people. Good talk.

Why no on 2? 1& 2 are just basically housekeeping measures, no? 

I'll probably vote yes on 2 now that I see you are allowed to affirm during the oath of office.

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

 Iluvs.

Just to appease you, I will pay for the attorney time with my own money and will schedule it on a weekend...so you are making me work during "non work hours" time.  You obviously don't know a thing about my work ethic, as there are no such thing as "work hours" to this farm kid.  I worked through the weekend for approximately half of the weekends this past year.  You should get to know me.  You'll learn I'm about as hard-working an individual as there is.  Up at 5 this morning for a meeting in LaMoure, then on to Bismarck for 2 more.  And another meeting tomorrow morning up in Walsh County.  You don't have to hate me for working hard and taking a stand on issues that benefit agriculture and sportsmen.  I'm who I am because of what I learned from my Grandpa and Dad.  I wouldn't hate on you for doing whatever you do, or for taking a stand.  

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

Jeff, the fact that u worked hard pj the measure doesn't change its nature or wording.

Gst, this ain't a con law class. But, a short explanation on how sec 21 isn't applied how u think it will be is farmers and sales tax, property tax and fuel tax. After measure 3 passes, they will have even more special privileges despite sec 21.

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

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

espringers Said:
Jeff, the fact that u worked hard pj the measure doesn't change its nature or wording.

Gst, this ain't a con law class. But, a short explanation on how sec 21 isn't applied how u think it will be is farmers and sales tax, property tax and fuel tax. After measure 3 passes, they will have even more special privileges despite sec 21.

have you read the state income tax form?  half the damn thing is special tax considerations for farmers only.  the special coddling of farmers has gotten to the point of being ridiculous.  I'm voting no on every damn measure on the ballot.  And I'm campaigning to everyone I know to do the same.  I guess class warfare is king.

 

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

espringers Said:
Jeff, the fact that u worked hard pj the measure doesn't change its nature or wording.

Gst, this ain't a con law class. But, a short explanation on how sec 21 isn't applied how u think it will be is farmers and sales tax, property tax and fuel tax. After measure 3 passes, they will have even more special privileges despite sec 21.

espringers if this is your explanation, you aren't quite as smart as you perhaps beleive. What is bein claimed by yourself and a small handful of others is that the legislature will not be able to regulate agriculture. We are not having a discussion wether agriculture gets "special priveledges", but wether the legislature itself retains the power to grant them or take them away. Big difference.

You apparently are so intent on appearing to "win" this discussion that you will not look at this with any sort of intelligence. 

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.

So now espringers one last time, how will this measure take away the ability of the legislature to regulate agriculture as you have claimed when the legislature itself has the ultimate ability to determine this granted under this section of our Constitution?

Why the hell do you think this section was included in our Constitution? To give the leislature (elected representatives of the people)  itself the final say in what is or is not granted. The legislature itself could if they wish take away each of the examples you gave.

But at least we now have a little insight into what is driving your opposition to this measure.

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

They will have to repeal the measure w a 2/3 vote. I think we covered that part on page 1.

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

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

Sometimes its hard to tell what u ate trying to argue. I thought we were talking bout the 2nd part of sec 21 since the first had been discussed bout 350 posts ago. And what is driving my opposition? Other than common sense of course?

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

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

gst Said:

espringers Said:
Jeff, the fact that u worked hard pj the measure doesn't change its nature or wording.

Gst, this ain't a con law class. But, a short explanation on how sec 21 isn't applied how u think it will be is farmers and sales tax, property tax and fuel tax. After measure 3 passes, they will have even more special privileges despite sec 21.

espringers if this is your explanation, you aren't quite as smart as you perhaps beleive. What is bein claimed by yourself and a small handful of others is that the legislature will not be able to regulate agriculture. We are not having a discussion wether agriculture gets "special priveledges", but wether the legislature itself retains the power to grant them or take them away. Big difference.

You apparently are so intent on appearing to "win" this discussion that you will not look at this with any sort of intelligence. 

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.

So now espringers one last time, how will this measure take away the ability of the legislature to regulate agriculture as you have claimed when the legislature itself has the ultimate ability to determine this granted under this section of our Constitution?

Why the hell do you think this section was included in our Constitution? To give the leislature (elected representatives of the people)  itself the final say in what is or is not granted. The legislature itself could if they wish take away each of the examples you gave.

But at least we now have a little insight into what is driving your opposition to this measure.

Well then why even worry about the measure in the first place gabe?

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

I never said you didn't work hard, or that you aren't a nice guy. I was just pointing out that it is not surprising to see your stance on this measure when you are directly employed by the ND Farm Bureau. I didn't make any claims that you collected signatures while on the clock, my comment was in reference to the meeting and the fact that you could easily do it without interfering with your personal time.  

Farmboy Jeff Said:
 Iluvs.

Just to appease you, I will pay for the attorney time with my own money and will schedule it on a weekend...so you are making me work during "non work hours" time.  You obviously don't know a thing about my work ethic, as there are no such thing as "work hours" to this farm kid.  I worked through the weekend for approximately half of the weekends this past year.  You should get to know me.  You'll learn I'm about as hard-working an individual as there is.  Up at 5 this morning for a meeting in LaMoure, then on to Bismarck for 2 more.  And another meeting tomorrow morning up in Walsh County.  You don't have to hate me for working hard and taking a stand on issues that benefit agriculture and sportsmen.  I'm who I am because of what I learned from my Grandpa and Dad.  I wouldn't hate on you for doing whatever you do, or for taking a stand.  

J

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

 So how many people do we have who are willing to attend a meeting if I'm able to get an attorney to meet on a Saturday?  Iluvs and Espringers...are you guys good to go?  Sportsman?  Who else is in?  I'd like to get at least 5 people...to make it worthwhile.  Like I said earlier...we can meet anywhere you guys would be comfortable.  But I can't see doing it for only a couple of people.  We only have a couple of Saturdays left before the election.

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

 I'm good to go Jeff. I'm sure we can get 5 willing and I imagine if we set a date a few more might commit. 

J

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

i suppose i will be accused of reneging... but, no weekend day between now and the 6th works for me.  and i only have one weekday (next thursday) between now and then where i don't have hearings and planned on killing ducks with a buddy from the cities that day.  but, i nominate eye to serve as my proxy.  i am sure he has nothing else going on.  lol. 

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

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

Farmboy Jeff Said:
 So how many people do we have who are willing to attend a meeting if I'm able to get an attorney to meet on a Saturday? 

Location will be important. If I cannot attend I have a friend who could go in my place (depending on location of course).

It's not that bad.

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

espringers Said:
i suppose i will be accused of reneging... but, no weekend day between now and the 6th works for me.  and i only have one weekday (next thursday) between now and then where i don't have hearings and planned on killing ducks with a buddy from the cities that day.  but, i nominate eye to serve as my proxy.  i am sure he has nothing else going on.  lol. 

I can help you out as long as it's in Williston.  I'm on call 24/7/365 so can't get too far from home lol

 

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

espringers Said:
They will have to repeal the measure w a 2/3 vote. I think we covered that part on page 1.

espringers, we have proven that indeed the legislature itself can prevent what you and others claim woudl happen if this measure passes, you can not deny it, it is in our constitution in two separate places, this article 21 and where it spells out how the initiated measure can be over turned which you referenced. These are facts that are undisputable, no opions, no claims,  black and white facts. So here is the question if ther exists to separate means that allow the legislature itself to overturn this measure if needed, how can you then honestly claim this measure will prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture??? 

The fact is you can not because the legislature itself is who will determine that, NOT THIS MEASURE.  

So can we have a cut to the chase no bullshit , plainsman's the ag community controls the legislature conspiracy theory ,common sense discussion here?

Does ANYONE actually think agriculture will be allowed to operate unregulated in this state yes or no.

So why put all the time effort and money into passing a measure that will do what will not be allowed?????????????

It has been proven how the legislature CAN prevent this from happening, so it comes down to do you beleive the leislature would allow chemicals to be sprayed where ever any one wishes, feedlots to be built on river bottoms so spring floods carry away the manure, ect....... All of which along with otehr examples have been claimed would be results of this measure passing.

So point blank, espringers iluvswnd, sportsman,  plainsman ANYONE opposed to this measure for that one reason do you really beleive the legislators will allow ag to run unregulated as claimed here in ND???

YES or NO.

And plainsman, please go back and check the thread on Nodak where I posted for you the number of legislators that have even a REMOTE connection to agriculture before you start with your "ag controls the legislature because farmers have nothing to do in the winter "
conspiracy.

Don;t beleive me, get on the ND legislative web site and see for yourself. There is no where close to a number preventing a 2/3 majority from overturning anything tied to agriculture in either house.

So come fellas a little common sense dialogue here.

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

I wouldn't trust the ND legislature to regulate farming by any stretch of the imagination.  They'll give them any damn thing they want time and time again. "By god if it's good for the farmer it's good for the state" will be they're call. 

 

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

Even though I know most of the propondents for Measure 3, I would still attend. Afterwards I'll buy the first two rounds of Jim Beam Black.

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

This would a great time for Plainsman and nodak/leadfed to meet and make friends if they were to attend.  X-mas spirt a little early. 

Fritz the Cat Said:
Even though I know most of the propondents for Measure 3, I would still attend. Afterwards I'll buy the first two rounds of Jim Beam Black.

 

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

You know it might indeed be a good idea to meet the man behind the screen, so let me know the time and place and I will do my best to attend. Anyone else?

I'll buy the next two rounds of Pendelton!

eyexer Said:
I wouldn't trust the ND legislature to regulate farming by any stretch of the imagination.  They'll give them any damn thing they want time and time again. "By god if it's good for the farmer it's good for the state" will be they're call. 

So you are saying the ND legislature will let "feedlots be built on river bottom so the flood waters carry the manure away" as has been claimed this measure will do?

How about allowing chemicals to be sprayed anywhere with no regulation as has been claimed this measure will do?

Or build a hog facility just outside city limits regardless of state regulations as has been claimed this measure will do.

Does any one actually beleive the legislature will allow these things to happen?

The claims have all been made, so how many are factual and truthful.

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

gst Said:
You know it might indeed be a good idea to meet the man behind the screen, so let me know the time and place and I will do my best to attend. Anyone else?

I'll buy the next two rounds of Pendelton!

eyexer Said:
I wouldn't trust the ND legislature to regulate farming by any stretch of the imagination.  They'll give them any damn thing they want time and time again. "By god if it's good for the farmer it's good for the state" will be they're call. 

So you are saying the ND legislature will let "feedlots be built on river bottom so the flood waters carry the manure away" as has been claimed this measure will do?

How about allowing chemicals to be sprayed anywhere with no regulation as has been claimed this measure will do?

Or build a hog facility just outside city limits regardless of state regulations as has been claimed this measure will do.

Does any one actually beleive the legislature will allow these things to happen?

The claims have all been made, so how many are factual and truthful.

I won't make any claims to specifics.  But I can tell you this, the legislature in this state is so in bed with agriculture I would put nothing past them.  If the ag community says "bark" they say "how loud".  It's sickening. 

 

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

So eye, will the legisalture allow agriculture to run totally unregulated as some claim this measure will allow or not.

Yes or no.

Simple question.

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

 Good morning fellas.  I see both the Fargo Forum and Grand Forks Herald have now endorsed a YES vote on Measure 3 this morning.   So now our committee has the backing of not only every major newspaper in the state, but also...the Governor, the Ag Commissioner, and every agriculture group in the state (except one).

This is positive news.  Please read these editorial columns and ask yourself if that many people have this issue wrong.

Please vote YES on Measure 3.

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

gst Said:
So eye, will the legisalture allow agriculture to run totally unregulated as some claim this measure will allow or not.

Yes or no.

Simple question.

aside from epa issues I'd say that's a distinct possibility. 

 

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

Gst, I think I said on page one that repealing it would be an option. Quit acting like that's some major revelation. But, y on gods green earth we should have to get a 2/3 majority to stop something harmful is beyond me. Just silliness.

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

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

eyexer Said:

gst Said:
So eye, will the legisalture allow agriculture to run totally unregulated as some claim this measure will allow or not.

Yes or no.

Simple question.

aside from epa issues I'd say that's a distinct possibility. 

I agree.  They think the sun rises and sets in agriculture.

I am sure measure 3 will pass, and I am sure many  problems will follow.

X-mas spirt
 

I prefer Christmas spirit.  If you know what that is mauser perhaps you could drop the jihad. 

I had sent a PM to farmboy, but looking at who wants to attend I'm not masochistic so count me out.  Well that and what your offering for refreshments is way beyond my ability to reciprocate.  I don't want to sponge off people so thanks, but I would feel like one of those people who don't pay taxes. 

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

Indeed now even all the papers must be in on this ag conspiracy plainsman has as well. I beleive it was the Grand Forks Herald that specifically addressed the claims made that this measure will not allow agricultrue to be regulated and said they are not true.

espringers, no one has suggested this would have to be repealed because a majority of people, media and legislators do not beleive it will do what you are claiming.

What has been posted is two separate writings from within our constitution that specifically spell out why this measure will NOT do what you and others have claimed because ultimately the legislature retains the final say.

So the claim this measure would prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture.

That simply is not true.

So plainsamn are you going to attend given who has said they will or not, I don't know after youhave edited your post. I thought you said you always made a note when you edited them!
 
plaisnamn you are in than you are out,,,,,,,,,,,,,, don;t worry about resiprocity, I have no problem buying or drinking a coke or other refreshment with you. I am curious why suddenly you are unwilling to meet? On Nodak it was all about meeting the legal people behind this measure, now suddenly it is  not?

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

eyexer Said:

gst Said:
So eye, will the legisalture allow agriculture to run totally unregulated as some claim this measure will allow or not.

Yes or no.

Simple question.

aside from epa issues I'd say that's a distinct possibility. 

Yes or no.

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

Plainsman Said:
.  I don't want to sponge off people so thanks, but I would feel like one of those people who don't pay taxes. 

Plainsman you have lived off people who pay taxes all your life,you are a recycler.

Plainsman Said:

X-mas spirt
 

I prefer Christmas spirit. 

LOL your sure have a poor way of showing that.   If you are afraid to face these guys just say so no need to bring me into it.  .

 

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

Plainsman wrote,

I had sent a PM to farmboy, but looking at who wants to attend I'm not masochistic so count me out.  Well that and what your offering for refreshments is way beyond my ability to reciprocate.  I don't want to sponge off people so thanks, but I would feel like one of those people who don't pay taxes. 

A little off topic but has a good fit.

BAR STOOL  ECONOMICS

    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for a beer and the  bill for
    all ten comes to $100.
    If they paid their bill the way we pay our  taxes, it would go
    something like this:

    The first four men (the  poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1.00
    The sixth would  pay $3.00
    The seventh would pay $7.00
    The eighth would pay $12.00
    The  ninth would pay $18.00
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay  $59.00

    So that's what they decided to do. The men drank in the bar  every
    day and seemed quite happy with arraignment, until one day, the
    owner threw them a curve.

    "Since you are all such good customers, he said,  I'm going to
    reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.00.
    "Drinks for the  ten men now cost just $80.00

    The group still wanted to pay their bill  the way we pay our taxes
    so the first four men were unaffected. They would  still drink for free.
    But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could
    they divide the $ 20 windfall so that everyone would get  there
    "fair share?" They realized that $ 20.00 divided by six is $3.33.
    But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth
    man and the sixth  man would each end up being paid to drink his
    beer. So, the bar owner  suggested that it would be fair to reduce
    each man's bill by roughly the same  amount, and he proceeded to
    work out the amounts each should pay!
    And  so:

    The fifth man like the first four, now paid nothing ( 100%  savings).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
    The seventh  now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
    The eighth now paid  $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
    The  ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of  $59 (16% savings).

    Each of the six was better off than before! And the first four
    continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the
    men began to compare their savings.

    "I only got a dollar out of the  $20" declared the sixth man. He
    pointed to the tenth man, "but he got  $10!"

    "Yeah, that's right, shouted the seventh man. "why should he get
    $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

    "Wait a  minute," yelled the first four men in union. " We didn't
    get anything at all.  The system exploits the poor!"

    The nine men surrounded the tenth and  beat him up.

    The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so  the nine
    sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
    bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
    money  between all of them for even half of the bill!

    And that, boys and  girls, journalist and college professors, is how
    our tax system works. The  people who pay the highest taxes get the
    most benefit from a tax reduction.  Tax them too much, attack them
    for being wealthy, and they just may not show  up anymore. In fact,
    they might start drinking elsewhere where the atmosphere  is somewhat
    friendlier.

    For those who understand, no explanation is  needed.

    For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

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

gst Said:

eyexer Said:

gst Said:
So eye, will the legisalture allow agriculture to run totally unregulated as some claim this measure will allow or not.

Yes or no.

Simple question.

aside from epa issues I'd say that's a distinct possibility. 

Yes or no.

your reading comprehension is surely lacking.  YES.  Now why don't you try answering some of the hundreds of questions you've been asked on these forums with simple Yes and No answers. 

 

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

eyexer Said:

gst Said:

eyexer Said:

gst Said:
So eye, will the legisalture allow agriculture to run totally unregulated as some claim this measure will allow or not.

Yes or no.

Simple question.

aside from epa issues I'd say that's a distinct possibility. 

Yes or no.

your reading comprehension is surely lacking.  YES.  Now why don't you try answering some of the hundreds of questions you've been asked on these forums with simple Yes and No answers. 

No comprehension problems, just wishing a single word answer. I do not care if you choose to explain the single word answer in two pages of comments or not.

If you truly beleive the legislature would allow agriculture to operate UNREGULATED as people have claimed you are a fool that knows little about state regulations already imposed on agriculture. .

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

 

This would a great time for Plainsman and nodak/leadfed to meet and make friends if they were to attend.  X-mas spirt a little early.  
 no need to bring me into it. 

I would be happy to do that mauser, but as you can see I was simply responding.  I guess I could say no need to bring me into it mauser.  Go back and look.

Fritz, your above post.  My point exactly.  You guys are to high roller for me to keep up with.  It was a nice gesture to everyone though.  If that is misunderstood it is meant as a complement.  


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

Plainsman Said:

Fritz, your above post.  My point exactly.  You guys are to high roller for me to keep up with.  It was a nice gesture to everyone though.  If that is misunderstood it is meant as a complement.  

And this is a "nice" excuse. 

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

Plainsman you ever watch the movie Forrest Grump?  You know "Run Forrest (plainsman) Run"

 

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

 It would be interesting to know if anyone has changed their mind after the usual 20 pages.  Anyone????

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

I can't vote but you would think anyone reading this type of comments would help change thier minds??

Re: NDFB opposes using oil tax revenue for conservation

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

Bad Dog, I picked this up on the Drudge Report yesterday. I thought of the NDFB first thing. I am not bashing, I am dead serious. These folks have a problem, and they are going right down the path of the Freemen, Posse Comitatus, and sovereign citizens. Look at their stand on most things and compare it to sovereign citizens. Same playbook.
 

 

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

gst Said:

eyexer Said:

gst Said:

eyexer Said:

gst Said:
So eye, will the legisalture allow agriculture to run totally unregulated as some claim this measure will allow or not.

Yes or no.

Simple question.

aside from epa issues I'd say that's a distinct possibility. 

Yes or no.

your reading comprehension is surely lacking.  YES.  Now why don't you try answering some of the hundreds of questions you've been asked on these forums with simple Yes and No answers. 

No comprehension problems, just wishing a single word answer. I do not care if you choose to explain the single word answer in two pages of comments or not.

If you truly beleive the legislature would allow agriculture to operate UNREGULATED as people have claimed you are a fool that knows little about state regulations already imposed on agriculture. .

obviously I'm not the only fool on the board then lol

 

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

Plainsman Said:
 It would be interesting to know if anyone has changed their mind after the usual 20 pages.  Anyone????

I did

 

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

 

eyexer Said:

Plainsman Said:
 It would be interesting to know if anyone has changed their mind after the usual 20 pages.  Anyone????

I did

Good, but I think measure #3 and #5 will both pass.  Then we will spend taxpayer money on legal fees.  
What is confusing is that with measure #3 about sure to pass anyone that's for it keeps arguing.   If it was going to be defeated I would keep my mouth shut so I didn't change any minds.   I would bet it's the guys for it that changed your mind and not me.  It gives us all a look into the mentality that will follow the passage of this bill.    

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

I don't think 5 will pass.

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

BringingTheRain Said:
I don't think 5 will pass.

I hope your right, because it's just a matter of time before it gets it's nose into hunting/farming/ranching.

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

#5 has zero chance at passing

 

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

I gots to know what refreshments are being served at this esteemed summit...

http://youtu.be/maBJzJgYjto

 Nuke the Whales

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

eyexer Said:
#5 has zero chance at passing

That is good news.  I thought one of the pro measure #3 guys said the poll was 60%+ for measure #5.  Was that just more bull droppings to convince us to vote for #3?

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

Plainsman Said:
  Good, but I think measure #3 and #5 will both pass.  Then we will spend taxpayer money on legal fees.  
.    

You are now worried about taxpayer money,take a good look in the mirror

Bull droppings you say? you have been offered a chance to address this bill but run instead  

gst Said:

Plainsman Said:

Fritz, your above post.  My point exactly.  You guys are to high roller for me to keep up with.  It was a nice gesture to everyone though.  If that is misunderstood it is meant as a complement.  

And this is a "nice" excuse. 

 

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

 Plainsman,

No bull droppings.  Just more facts.  The Mason Dixon poll released on October 8 (can be viewed at Valley News Live's website) showed a yes vote total of 66 percent, a no vote total of 27 percent, and 7 percent undecided.  The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent, so it was statistically valid and reliable.  Having said that, a lot of work has been done since October 8 so I believe it is going to be much closer than that poll shows.  I pray Measure 5 is defeated.  I have written a letter to the editor, hung a "No on 5" sign on a semi trailer a few weeks ago, and did a t.v. interview as well trying to defeat 5.  You'll be happy to know that I received a letter from the pro-5 group as a result of my t.v. comments.  They are threatening to press charges against me.  Please vote YES on Measure 3 and NO on Measure 5!  Both measures serve to prevent the same groups from coming into our state and harming hunting/agriculture/meat consumption.

Pages