Measure #3

Pages

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

iluvswnd Said:
I'm voting NO on M5. Thought I mentioned that already. Even have a sign in my yard to try and get some awareness 

gst Said:
iluvswnd, Just got back from the Minot meeting on measure 5. I wish you could have been there in attendance to hear a very well laid out step by step explaination of how HSUS is engaging in furthering their agendas in states like ND thru the ballot measure process now as measure 5.

You are truly being either disingenuous or very poorly informed if you wish to claim concerns over what is currently happening in ND with measure 5 are nothing more than "red herrings".

 
I do not know how to put it more directly or politely.

Just as you have suggested people are indeed uninfromed, from your comments dismissing the inclusion of Measure 5 in this discussion as a "red herring" you are showing your very own degree of being uninformed.

Regardless of what you may "beleive",  in conversations held at the very origin of this measure with the sponsors prior to it even being submitted to the SOS office the intent was made very clear to the orgs they approached to gain support from.

I was on the board of directors of one of these orgs.  and asked some very pointed questions and I can honestly tell you that myself and the 27 other people in the room voted to support this measure because we ALL beleived unanimously the intent is indeed to prevent groups like HSUS from using the ballot initiative process to ban certain animal agriculture practices.

I talked with our three representatives from district 6 tonite and not one of them beleived this measure will prevent them from creating necessary laws to regulate agriculture.

Thanks for suppoting a no vote on 5. it still doesn;t mean it is not directly connected to 3.

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

iluvswnd,

I'm having a hard time keeping up with all of your requests.  For someone who seems to doubt the sincerity and legitimacy of my comments so adamantly, you sure do ask a lot of questions!  :)

I appreciate gst's question posed last night...would you believe ANYTHING I would post anyway?  You haven't yet, so what is the point sir?

If you doubt everything I say and there is obviously not enough time for me to earn your respect and/or trust (especially through a blog site and without any kind of personal relationship/conversation) then I find it futile to continue to send you information...only to have you make sarcastic and unproductive comments. 

To put it in plain words and with all due respect, it isn't worth my time to provide you with any other information.  Your comments and requests are so rare and disrespectful, that you are obviously only trying to muddy the waters to try to make yourself feel like somebody...anonymously...on a blog site...in an exchange with a handful of people.

You act like a sincere effort among 270 North Dakota volunteer farmers and ranchers is some huge conspiracy.  I have answered your questions directly, while you don't answer mine (I asked you if you signed my petition or if you witnessed what I discussed with petition signers...no response).  And when I told you what I said to folks when they approached to signed my petition, you acted like I was some kind of liar or something...using "tactics."  Telling the truth to people is not a "tactic."  Having people reach for a pen to sign a petition is not a "tactic."

You are now asking for information in regard to whether the sponsoring committee for Measure 3 consulted with an attorney or law firm, or whether one was hired.  Who cares?  What difference does that make, since the proposed ballot measure language is already through the process?  The language is what it is, and cannot be changed now.  So are you telling me your decision on how to vote on Measure 3 hinges upon whether atttorneys were "consulted" versus "hired?"  How do you think sponsoring committees initiate statutory and/or consitutional amendments...by throwing darts at the wall?  I would venture to bet the overwhelming majority of committees enlist the services of a capable attorney(s).  You'd be foolish not to. 

It has been fun going back and forth, but I would hope you have questions that result in something other than sarcasm and repetition. 

Off to put more VOTE YES on Measure 3 signs in the ground.  iluvs...I hope you can open your mind to the thought of considering a YES vote.  If you can, I will gladly agree to meet up with you for lunch or coffee, so we can establish some level of respect and trust...even though we may disagree.

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

Karen Thunshell, chairman for the HSUS animal felony measure has hired Vogel Law Firm (not cheap) to challenge some of the wording on the ndanimalstewards web site. The Attorney Generals Office has been called up to settle the flap.

iluvswnd, waaaayyyy back when, I suggested right here to go get an AG opinion on measure 3. If your legislator isn't moving fast enough for you might I suggest contacting Karen Thunshell. She knows people with lots of money. They will hire Vogal Law firm. Here is the man who Karen used to draft a warm letter to ndanimalstewards:

http://www.vogellaw.com/attorneys/attorney_rogneby.php

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

his issue jeff is that the general statement "measure 3 will not prevent the regulation or passing of legislation that could effect or abridge harmful modern farming or ranching practices" is just your opinion.  nothing more.  nothing less.  and you and everyone else keeps parroting it like it is a god given fact.  the real truth is that that statement is far from a fact.  if you could even be close to 100% certain it is a given truth, then the farmer's union would be on your side and there wouldn't be guys like us who look at the wording of the measure and are immediately struck with concern.  but, you keep ignoring that concern with the basic response "you will have to trust us on this one... you guys are wrong."  that is kind of hard to do.  especially given one of the things on the farm bureau's wish list is/was the ability to farm free from regulation.  can you even admit you understand our concern(s)?

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

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

espringers Said:
his issue jeff is that the general statement "measure 3 will not prevent the regulation or passing of legislation that could effect or abridge harmful modern farming or ranching practices" is just your opinion.  nothing more.  nothing less.  and you and everyone else keeps parroting it like it is a god given fact.  the real truth is that that statement is far from a fact.  if you could even be close to 100% certain it is a given truth, then the farmer's union would be on your side and there wouldn't be guys like us who look at the wording of the measure and are immediately struck with concern.  but, you keep ignoring that concern with the basic response "you will have to trust us on this one... you guys are wrong."  that is kind of hard to do.  especially given one of the things on the farm bureau's wish list is/was the ability to farm free from regulation.  can you even admit you understand our concern(s)?

espringers you condemn one group of people for offering their "opinion" on an internet site but yet what exactly is your claim this measure will result in the legislature not bing able to regulate agriculture?

The exact same thing you condemn others for sharing.

The "opinion" you are condemnig other individuals for having is apparently shared by legislators themselves as well as the media whom it would belogical to beleive would jump all over a story proving this measure would allow unregulated agriculture with no means to address negative effects. 
 
I mean don;t you think a RRV media source would be reporting on the fact as you claim this measure wouldprevent the legislature from dealing with ag related water issues that you have used as examples???

Espringers I am not demanding you prove your own "opinion" you andothers continue to parrot without proof, I am asking that you do, as if it is true that the legislature will no longer be able to pass responsible common sense regulation on agriculture if this measure passes, I would not support it.

And please espringers, take the advise to talk with those that have been engaged in agriculture for a few decades and ask their "opinion" of how well FU and FB have gotten along and supported each others policies thru out the years.

As has been said they have both supported policies OTHER orgs have brought forth, but please provide one example of a legislative action either of these orgs have brought forth on their own that the other has supported.

I am suggesting this espringers because to continue to "parrot" FU position in opposition to a FB policy is only showing those that do understand this divide your lack of understanding.

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

 

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 Gst, you're trying to shift the burden of proof to me. I don't have to prove your claims, you do. 

hey, I'm not the one claiming this measure will prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture.

I'm not the one making claims legislators themselves are not making.

I'm not the one making claims no other media source is supporting.

So exactly who's claims should be proven???

It is interesting you have asked your representative to contact the AG's office. Quite awhile back on Nodak I sugested that be done and it ignited quite the discussion with several other claims made by people opposing this measure so indeed I am interested to hear what transpires.

Please keep us informed.

I am wondering though, would you beleive anything Jeff or NDFB were to post???

I have no claims that I need to prove, I didn't write the measure and I am not pushing the measure. I am concerned with the language and I want clarification on what effect it will have. In this situation the burden of proof falls on those who are claiming "this is what it will do" not those who are saying "how do you know that?" 

I am not a member and don't follow Nodak so I'm not aware of anything going on over there. My concern, and the reason I asked for an AG opinion, is because the supporters of this measure won't provide the written opinion from their legal counsel. I'll address that further when I reply to Jeff. I'll certainly keep you updated on anything I find out. 

To answer your last question I will believe anything that Jeff or the NDFB post that they can back up. I'm not against Jeff, I'm not against the Farm Bureau, I'm skeptical of the language of Measure 3. It really is that simple, I have no agenda and I have no vendetta against any person or group, I just want know the true and full effect of the measure at hand. 

J

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

 

gst Said:

Thanks for suppoting a no vote on 5. it still doesn;t mean it is not directly connected to 3.

Also, it doesn't mean that it is directly related either...

J

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

 

Farmboy Jeff Said:
iluvswnd,

I'm having a hard time keeping up with all of your requests.  For someone who seems to doubt the sincerity and legitimacy of my comments so adamantly, you sure do ask a lot of questions!  :)

I do have lots of questions, you identified yourself as someone who is directly related to this measure so who better to ask them to?

I appreciate gst's question posed last night...would you believe ANYTHING I would post anyway?  You haven't yet, so what is the point sir?

Sure. Is it wrong to have a differing opinion though?

If you doubt everything I say and there is obviously not enough time for me to earn your respect and/or trust (especially through a blog site and without any kind of personal relationship/conversation) then I find it futile to continue to send you information...only to have you make sarcastic and unproductive comments. 

To put it in plain words and with all due respect, it isn't worth my time to provide you with any other information.  Your comments and requests are so rare and disrespectful, that you are obviously only trying to muddy the waters to try to make yourself feel like somebody...anonymously...on a blog site...in an exchange with a handful of people.

Then don't. You're so passionate about this measure that you took so much time out of your summer to gather signatures I don't know what a few minutes on a website will hurt. I'm just looking for some background to your claims on the effects this measure will have; opinions are one thing, facts are another.

You act like a sincere effort among 270 North Dakota volunteer farmers and ranchers is some huge conspiracy.  I have answered your questions directly, while you don't answer mine (I asked you if you signed my petition or if you witnessed what I discussed with petition signers...no response).  And when I told you what I said to folks when they approached to signed my petition, you acted like I was some kind of liar or something...using "tactics."  Telling the truth to people is not a "tactic."  Having people reach for a pen to sign a petition is not a "tactic."

I did not sign your petition, I did not witness you petitioning. I have no idea who you are. I didn't act like you were a liar. I pointed out a pretty obvious difference between 2 of your statements regarding your signature collecting. You said first that you only had to mention HSUS and PETA and people were reaching for pens, and then later you said that all you asked people is if they would sign your petition to add 2 sentences to our ND constitution. There is a difference between those two claims, I simply pointed it out, if that's an attack on your character or me calling you a liar then perhaps your conscience is trying to tell you something. 

You are now asking for information in regard to whether the sponsoring committee for Measure 3 consulted with an attorney or law firm, or whether one was hired.  Who cares?  What difference does that make, since the proposed ballot measure language is already through the process?  The language is what it is, and cannot be changed now.  So are you telling me your decision on how to vote on Measure 3 hinges upon whether atttorneys were "consulted" versus "hired?"  How do you think sponsoring committees initiate statutory and/or consitutional amendments...by throwing darts at the wall?  I would venture to bet the overwhelming majority of committees enlist the services of a capable attorney(s).  You'd be foolish not to. 

You are skirting the intent of my question which I have been very clear on. You just stated that they would have been foolish not to hire an attorney, I agree. I want to know what the attorney's opinion on what effect the measure language will have on future regulation of the industry. 

You are correct, the language is what it is. I agree wholeheartedly and that language will have a distinct effect on our state constitution. I want to know what that will be. If the NDFB is confident that there will be no outside effect then why not get the opinion from them and end this debate? If you/they are not comfortable releasing that information then it just adds to my skepticism.

I assure you that every word and the order that they are composed in those two sentences are so for a reason. 

It has been fun going back and forth, but I would hope you have questions that result in something other than sarcasm and repetition. 

My repetition is only in response to your avoidance of such questions. 

Off to put more VOTE YES on Measure 3 signs in the ground.  iluvs...I hope you can open your mind to the thought of considering a YES vote.  If you can, I will gladly agree to meet up with you for lunch or coffee, so we can establish some level of respect and trust...even though we may disagree.

I'll be happy to get together so you can enlighten me. I'm not sure what part of the state you're in though. Perhaps we can meet at the Farm Bureau office and you can show me that legal opinion? 


J

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

 

Fritz the Cat Said:
Karen Thunshell, chairman for the HSUS animal felony measure has hired Vogel Law Firm (not cheap) to challenge some of the wording on the ndanimalstewards web site. The Attorney Generals Office has been called up to settle the flap.

iluvswnd, waaaayyyy back when, I suggested right here to go get an AG opinion on measure 3. If your legislator isn't moving fast enough for you might I suggest contacting Karen Thunshell. She knows people with lots of money. They will hire Vogal Law firm. Here is the man who Karen used to draft a warm letter to ndanimalstewards:

http://www.vogellaw.com/attorneys/attorney_rogneby.php

Fritz, I'm not sure if you're joking or not so I'll answer as if your comments are not facetious.

I have no interest in working with the HSUS to get an answer on this. Especially when I'm pretty confident the NDFB already has the information I'm looking for. I have a very good ND Representative working on this for me and I expect they will get me what I'm looking for as long as we still have time. 2 sentences might not seem like much but there is a lot of research work involved with this type of opinion. 

J

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

 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
his issue jeff is that the general statement "measure 3 will not prevent the regulation or passing of legislation that could effect or abridge harmful modern farming or ranching practices" is just your opinion.  nothing more.  nothing less.  and you and everyone else keeps parroting it like it is a god given fact.  the real truth is that that statement is far from a fact.  if you could even be close to 100% certain it is a given truth, then the farmer's union would be on your side and there wouldn't be guys like us who look at the wording of the measure and are immediately struck with concern.  but, you keep ignoring that concern with the basic response "you will have to trust us on this one... you guys are wrong."  that is kind of hard to do.  especially given one of the things on the farm bureau's wish list is/was the ability to farm free from regulation.  can you even admit you understand our concern(s)?

espringers you condemn one group of people for offering their "opinion" on an internet site but yet what exactly is your claim this measure will result in the legislature not bing able to regulate agriculture?

The exact same thing you condemn others for sharing.

The "opinion" you are condemnig other individuals for having is apparently shared by legislators themselves as well as the media whom it would belogical to beleive would jump all over a story proving this measure would allow unregulated agriculture with no means to address negative effects. 
 
I mean don;t you think a RRV media source would be reporting on the fact as you claim this measure wouldprevent the legislature from dealing with ag related water issues that you have used as examples???

Espringers I am not demanding you prove your own "opinion" you andothers continue to parrot without proof, I am asking that you do, as if it is true that the legislature will no longer be able to pass responsible common sense regulation on agriculture if this measure passes, I would not support it.

And please espringers, take the advise to talk with those that have been engaged in agriculture for a few decades and ask their "opinion" of how well FU and FB have gotten along and supported each others policies thru out the years.

As has been said they have both supported policies OTHER orgs have brought forth, but please provide one example of a legislative action either of these orgs have brought forth on their own that the other has supported.

I am suggesting this espringers because to continue to "parrot" FU position in opposition to a FB policy is only showing those that do understand this divide your lack of understanding.

gst,

If you honestly think that the NDFU would purposely fight a measure that will surely be good for agriculture in North Dakota purely because the NDFB presented it I think you're sadly mistaken. 

Both of these organizations have policy guiding their stances and opinions on certain subjects. When there is a difference in policy between the two then you are correct that they will disagree on the issue.

What springers is trying to say is that it would be foolish for the NDFU to blatantly recommend a NO vote on something that you claim will only be good for agriculture in our state. He wants to know  why the discrepancy between the two and your only response is that they're only opposing it because FB supports it??

J

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

 

gst Said:

It is interesting you have asked your representative to contact the AG's office. Quite awhile back on Nodak I sugested that be done and it ignited quite the discussion with several other claims made by people opposing this measure so indeed I am interested to hear what transpires.

Please keep us informed.

I regret to inform you guys that the AG has declined to give an opinion on this measure prior to the vote. Secondly, even if he would have agreed to he's currently backed up about 2-3 months so we wouldn't have gotten it prior to the vote anyway. 

Maybe Jeff can get the opinion from the FB lawyers. 

J

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

Thank you espringers.

I DO understand where you are coming from, and I respect your ideas and opinions.  However, to be honest here...are you willing to admit there is NO AMOUNT OF INFORMATION any of us could provide to you that would cause you to vote YES on this measure?

I'm thinking a couple of you struggle to trust ANYTHING, or ANYONE, and I can respect that as well.  And the only way to convince someone of this mindset is...for them to experience it themselves.  So don't you have to admit, the ONLY way you are going to be able to test a given piece of legislation and/or a constitutional amendment is to...either pass it and test it, or not pass it?  And that is what we have in front of us now.  So, if you're going to vote no, I can respect that.  But just admit it.  We'll agree to disagree since none of us have a way of looking into the future to see how things will play out.  And neither would you, if you were trying to get a ballot measure passed, and/or a piece of legislation passed.  All we can do, is the best we possibly can to ensure a given initiative will yield its intended results, and not unintended consequences.  And that is why I feel so good about Measure 3, because I know the preparation that went into this. 

I would be curious to know, how would YOU word a ballot measure that is attempting to protect farming and ranching practices (or hunting, for example) from what HSUS and PETA are doing in other states?  Humor me a bit.  Throw out a couple of sentences and we'll see what you come up with.  It's not as easy as you may think.   

You are inaccurately trying to define measure language as being statements of "fact."  A statement of "fact" would be, "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west."  Our language is a proposed amendment to our state constitution.  Amendments, if passed, become requests for correction and improvement to the core document.  Just like every other amendment to a constitution, it will either be placed in the constitution to offer protection from something, or it won't based upon the outcome of the vote of the people.  The thing you aren't willing to admit THAT IS A FACT...is that constitutional language is inherently concise and vague.  By its very nature, it needs to be written the way it is so as to not tie the hands of future generations, and to allow for our judicial system to serve as a check and balance to the legislative and executive branches.  The entire U.S. constitution is only 4,500 words in length.  And that is why this measure is only 2 sentences in length, and why it would have been inappropriate to start defining specific details in it.  It is the job of the state legislature to deal with specifics.  It would have been highly inappropriate for us to replace the word "practices" with such specific items as "use of farrowing crates, branding, etc." because if and when such practices are no longer applicable...the constitution would have to be further amended to remain applicable.   

Constitutional language also needs to be timeless.  Hence the use of the word, "modern."  Modern is defined as, "characteristic of present and recent time; contemporary; not antiquated or obsolete."  If this measure passes, our measure language will still be applicable 100 years from now, because of the word, "modern."  It is whatever PRACTICES are "modern" to that time period.  If a better and more efficient practice comes along, the measure would protect the right to be able to use it.  But if a better solution does not come along, we will be able to use whatever practice is "modern" to that time period, without fear that HSUS and/or PETA will come in and attempt to harm our industry.
 
I'll leave you with a quote from John Marshall that explains why we are encouraging a YES vote on Measure 3.  Marshall was quoted as saying, "...a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."  The crisis that is being addressed with this measure involves 2 out-of-state groups with deep pockets trying to ban farming and ranching practices.

I apologize for my verbosity.  Just trying to provide more specifics to help you make voting decisions.

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

I'm laughing hysterically at how all of the sudden, the latest suggestion is that an "opinion" from an attorney and/or attorneys is going to somehow cause the seas to part and the minds of some to open up.  Ha ha!!!!  Oh, if only we had an opinion from an attorney.  It will change everything!  Ha ha!!!  This WHOLE issue suddenly now boils down to repetitive requests for opinions from attorneys.  So funny.

Gee...I wonder if the attorney and/or attorneys who were sought to assist in the development of this language...were actually believers in the fact that it was good, sound language that would hold up in a court of law?  I wonder if perhaps they studied this relentlessly to make sure it was done correctly, based upon the failures from a variety of other states?  I wonder if they had a solid reputation for handling issues of this nature?  Hmmm...let me think about that.  NOPE!  NOPE!  NOPE!  They actually hated the language, and thought it was terrible.  They didn't believe in this initiative either.  They gave it "the ole college try" and just threw darts at a wall.  And that is why their opinion is...it is bad language.  (this is sarcasm folks) 

What a completely idiotic request.  Do you REALLY believe this group of 270+ volunteers would have invested this amount of time, money and effort if there was ANY doubt about whether the language was sound or if it had been properly vetted?  Come on now.

Have to run.  Putting more signs up.  Vote YES on Measure 3!   

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

Iluvs,

So you want an attorney's opinion?  You have asked for it about 10 times now.

Here is a direct quote from you from the thread above from a little over 2 hours ago:

"I'm just looking for some background to your claims on the effects this measure will have; opinions are one thing, facts are another."

So is an attorney's opinion different from my opinion or yours?  Do attorneys have a special gift that allows them to only speak in facts? 

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

 

Farmboy Jeff Said:
Iluvs,

So you want an attorney's opinion?  You have asked for it about 10 times now.

Here is a direct quote from you from the thread above from a little over 2 hours ago:

"I'm just looking for some background to your claims on the effects this measure will have; opinions are one thing, facts are another."

So is an attorney's opinion different from my opinion or yours?  Do attorneys have a special gift that allows them to only speak in facts? 

An attorney's opinion is absolutely different then mine and yours. A legal opinion from the AG or a judge is what defines laws and sets precedents. A legal opinion (yup, from an attorney) wouldn't have the same power but would entail them looking at the language and defining the language in relation to law and then offering an interpretation of what it will mean. This involves looking into past cases and rulings to determine which precedents will effect the full power of the measure.

You continue to scoff at me asking for it, but offer no answer to my request for it.

J

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

 

Farmboy Jeff Said:
I'm laughing hysterically at how all of the sudden, the latest suggestion is that an "opinion" from an attorney and/or attorneys is going to somehow cause the seas to part and the minds of some to open up.  Ha ha!!!!  Oh, if only we had an opinion from an attorney.  It will change everything!  Ha ha!!!  This WHOLE issue suddenly now boils down to repetitive requests for opinions from attorneys.  So funny.

Gee...I wonder if the attorney and/or attorneys who were sought to assist in the development of this language...were actually believers in the fact that it was good, sound language that would hold up in a court of law?  I wonder if perhaps they studied this relentlessly to make sure it was done correctly, based upon the failures from a variety of other states?  I wonder if they had a solid reputation for handling issues of this nature?  Hmmm...let me think about that.  NOPE!  NOPE!  NOPE!  They actually hated the language, and thought it was terrible.  They didn't believe in this initiative either.  They gave it "the ole college try" and just threw darts at a wall.  And that is why their opinion is...it is bad language.  (this is sarcasm folks) 

What a completely idiotic request.  Do you REALLY believe this group of 270+ volunteers would have invested this amount of time, money and effort if there was ANY doubt about whether the language was sound or if it had been properly vetted?  Come on now.

Have to run.  Putting more signs up.  Vote YES on Measure 3!   

I don't believe that at all, quite the contrary. I know they did and thats why I'm asking you to provide the information showing it. Did you really think I was implying that they didn't have lawyers work on it?? 

J

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

Farmboy Jeff Said:
I'm laughing hysterically at how all of the sudden, the latest suggestion is that an "opinion" from an attorney and/or attorneys is going to somehow cause the seas to part and the minds of some to open up.  Ha ha!!!!  Oh, if only we had an opinion from an attorney.  It will change everything!  Ha ha!!!  This WHOLE issue suddenly now boils down to repetitive requests for opinions from attorneys.  So funny.

Gee...I wonder if the attorney and/or attorneys who were sought to assist in the development of this language...were actually believers in the fact that it was good, sound language that would hold up in a court of law?  I wonder if perhaps they studied this relentlessly to make sure it was done correctly, based upon the failures from a variety of other states?  I wonder if they had a solid reputation for handling issues of this nature?  Hmmm...let me think about that.  NOPE!  NOPE!  NOPE!  They actually hated the language, and thought it was terrible.  They didn't believe in this initiative either.  They gave it "the ole college try" and just threw darts at a wall.  And that is why their opinion is...it is bad language.  (this is sarcasm folks) 

What a completely idiotic request.  Do you REALLY believe this group of 270+ volunteers would have invested this amount of time, money and effort if there was ANY doubt about whether the language was sound or if it had been properly vetted?  Come on now.

Have to run.  Putting more signs up.  Vote YES on Measure 3!   

I don't believe that at all, quite the contrary. I know they did and thats why I'm asking you to provide the information showing it. Did you really think I was implying that they didn't have lawyers work on it?? 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be the first time a measure didn't pass in this state because it was too vague. Weren't people doing the same thing back in June?

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

It is interesting you have asked your representative to contact the AG's office. Quite awhile back on Nodak I sugested that be done and it ignited quite the discussion with several other claims made by people opposing this measure so indeed I am interested to hear what transpires.

Please keep us informed.

I regret to inform you guys that the AG has declined to give an opinion on this measure prior to the vote. Secondly, even if he would have agreed to he's currently backed up about 2-3 months so we wouldn't have gotten it prior to the vote anyway. 

Maybe Jeff can get the opinion from the FB lawyers. 

A couple of years ago I stopped at the Attorney Generals Office for two reasons. First I wanted to report some federal guys who were violating the Hatch Act (the AG's Office is connected at the hip with the Bureau of Criminal Investigations) and secondly I wanted to lead into a discussion about a certain inititiated measure.

His secretary sniffed it out right away (opinions) and if she would have had a broom in her hands she would have swept me out the door. She is tough.

You see iluvswnd, I kind of knew in advance how far you were going to get. Ha

Other states are watching this amendment 3 very close. When it passes it will spread to other states just like Section 27 of our constitution is spreading. 

 

Section 27.

Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good.


http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/local/should-right-to-hunt-be-guaranteed-in-nebraska-constitution-voters/article_484e3a58-07d7-11e2-b05f-001a4bcf887a.html

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
his issue jeff is that the general statement "measure 3 will not prevent the regulation or passing of legislation that could effect or abridge harmful modern farming or ranching practices" is just your opinion.  nothing more.  nothing less.  and you and everyone else keeps parroting it like it is a god given fact.  the real truth is that that statement is far from a fact.  if you could even be close to 100% certain it is a given truth, then the farmer's union would be on your side and there wouldn't be guys like us who look at the wording of the measure and are immediately struck with concern.  but, you keep ignoring that concern with the basic response "you will have to trust us on this one... you guys are wrong."  that is kind of hard to do.  especially given one of the things on the farm bureau's wish list is/was the ability to farm free from regulation.  can you even admit you understand our concern(s)?

espringers you condemn one group of people for offering their "opinion" on an internet site but yet what exactly is your claim this measure will result in the legislature not bing able to regulate agriculture?

The exact same thing you condemn others for sharing.

The "opinion" you are condemnig other individuals for having is apparently shared by legislators themselves as well as the media whom it would belogical to beleive would jump all over a story proving this measure would allow unregulated agriculture with no means to address negative effects. 
 
I mean don;t you think a RRV media source would be reporting on the fact as you claim this measure wouldprevent the legislature from dealing with ag related water issues that you have used as examples???

Espringers I am not demanding you prove your own "opinion" you andothers continue to parrot without proof, I am asking that you do, as if it is true that the legislature will no longer be able to pass responsible common sense regulation on agriculture if this measure passes, I would not support it.

And please espringers, take the advise to talk with those that have been engaged in agriculture for a few decades and ask their "opinion" of how well FU and FB have gotten along and supported each others policies thru out the years.

As has been said they have both supported policies OTHER orgs have brought forth, but please provide one example of a legislative action either of these orgs have brought forth on their own that the other has supported.

I am suggesting this espringers because to continue to "parrot" FU position in opposition to a FB policy is only showing those that do understand this divide your lack of understanding.

gst,

If you honestly think that the NDFU would purposely fight a measure that will surely be good for agriculture in North Dakota purely because the NDFB presented it I think you're sadly mistaken. 

Both of these organizations have policy guiding their stances and opinions on certain subjects. When there is a difference in policy between the two then you are correct that they will disagree on the issue.

What springers is trying to say is that it would be foolish for the NDFU to blatantly recommend a NO vote on something that you claim will only be good for agriculture in our state. He wants to know  why the discrepancy between the two and your only response is that they're only opposing it because FB supports it??

iluvswnd, I sit on the board of the ND Beef Commission. Over the years FU has NOT supported positions that the majority of beef producers in the state of ND beleive is best for ND beef producers.  They are current.ly supporting an org that has hopped in bed with HSUS in a lawsuit challenging the Beef Check off it self.

I asked you to name one legislative bill that NDFB has introduced over the years that FU has supported.

I do not know what you do for a living, but most anyone that is engaged in production agriculture will tell you straight up these orgs would indeed oppose something that may indeed be beneficial to agriculture simply because the other brought it forth. Even Tim alluded to that fact way back at the start of this discussion.

You may not understand the logic behind this, but please beleive me when I say it is decades old here in ND.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
You may not understand the logic behind this, but please beleive me when I say it is decades old here in ND.

I can remember the conflict from the early 1960's.  My parents belonged to the NDFB.  It was kind of ironic that after dad had a heart attack and we sold the farm and moved to town that he worked for the Farmers Union.   We put the fields in Soil Bank and I took care of the cattle for a couple of years, but it was to much work for an eighth grader with school too.

With that said they most often disagreed on political things.  Even back then the Farmers Union understood that farm programs had strings attached.  At that same time Farm Bureau didn't want regulations.  If you remember they thought DDT was all made up by government.  They think everything is made up.  That's why abolishing regulations worries me.  Why did chemical regulations come about?  They came about because of misuse.

Just a little history folks.

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

Plainsman Said:

You may not understand the logic behind this, but please beleive me when I say it is decades old here in ND.

I can remember the conflict from the early 1960's.  My parents belonged to the NDFB.  It was kind of ironic that after dad had a heart attack and we sold the farm and moved to town that he worked for the Farmers Union.   We put the fields in Soil Bank and I took care of the cattle for a couple of years, but it was to much work for an eighth grader with school too.

With that said they most often disagreed on political things.  Even back then the Farmers Union understood that farm programs had strings attached.  At that same time Farm Bureau didn't want regulations.  If you remember they thought DDT was all made up by government.  They think everything is made up.  That's why abolishing regulations worries me.  Why did chemical regulations come about?  They came about because of misuse.

Just a little history folks.

Ah yes a little history,how about some history a little more recent concerning the use of the legall system you seem to be afraid to answer.   "Did you forge your wifes signature on the first HFH measure?"  Did you pay any attention to the regualtions used for collecting signatures?  Here is your own words"That's why abolishing regulations worries me"  As you say  "Just a little history folks".

 

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

 Plainsman,

I'm not sure what ballot measure you are reading when you talk about "abolishing regulations" but it certainly isn't Measure 3.  Read the two sentences.  What is the last word of the second sentence, which is the sole focus of the measure?  PRACTICES.  The right to use PRACTICES and TECHNOLOGY.  There is ZERO language in the measure that says regulations should be abolished.  For the 10th time, consider the analogy of the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The right to keep and bear arms.  It provides a right, but we still have gun laws and regulations.  

Please don't misrepresent this measure.  Where do you see ANY reference to abolishment of regulations in the 2 sentences of this measure?  Read the entire 2nd sentence.  It is specific to PRACTICES and the use of TECHNOLOGY.  

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

I don't see abolish in this measure Farmboy.   I seen it on the NDFB internet site.  I see this measure as blocking any future practices that may hurt  neighbors including other farmers.  If it was written to protect against animal rights groups then it could have at least said animal practices.  At the very least.

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

Duck and dive Bruce, Everyone should be regulated more amd more but not you and the animal rights groups right.   Bruce did you forge yor wifes signature on the first HFH measure?  

 

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

Bruce I am sure you think this wifes signature is a vendeta aginst poor old Bruce,well it is not. It is a vendeta against all laws broken in the signature collecting,precess,
weather some football palyers or Federal employees.

Time the voting laws,signature laws be enforced to the fulls degree in this country.

In the next two weeks I wil be meeting with some personal in the Dept of Interior and they too seem to think laws are for everyone.   

I will also get what the conduct code explained to me first hand.

 

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

Plainsman Said:
I don't see abolish in this measure Farmboy.   I seen it on the NDFB internet site.  I see this measure as blocking any future practices that may hurt  neighbors including other farmers.  If it was written to protect against animal rights groups then it could have at least said animal practices.  At the very least.

 

Plainsman, how many threads and how many pages did you post on Nodak claiming this measure would "abolish" all agricultural regulations?????????? 

Credibility.

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

Plainsman,

Today was the pheasant opener and most sportsmen were out doors. Not you, sitting in your hidey hole pounding your key board all day....... Sad

For some reason the birds ran on us and busted a little wild this morning. This afternoon was much better.

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

 

mauserG33-40 Said:
Bruce I am sure you think this wifes signature is a vendeta aginst poor old Bruce,well it is not. It is a vendeta against all laws broken in the signature collecting,precess,
weather some football palyers or Federal employees.

Time the voting laws,signature laws be enforced to the fulls degree in this country.

In the next two weeks I wil be meeting with some personal in the Dept of Interior and they too seem to think laws are for everyone.   

I will also get what the conduct code explained to me first hand.

  huh??

It's not that bad.

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

 

Farmboy Jeff Said:
Gee...I wonder if the attorney and/or attorneys who were sought to assist in the development of this language...were actually believers in the fact that it was good, sound language that would hold up in a court of law?  I wonder if perhaps they studied this relentlessly to make sure it was done correctly, based upon the failures from a variety of other states?  I wonder if they had a solid reputation for handling issues of this nature?  Hmmm...let me think about that.  NOPE!  NOPE!  NOPE!  They actually hated the language, and thought it was terrible.  They didn't believe in this initiative either.  They gave it "the ole college try" and just threw darts at a wall.  And that is why their opinion is...it is bad language.  (this is sarcasm folks) 

What a completely idiotic request.  Do you REALLY believe this group of 270+ volunteers would have invested this amount of time, money and effort if there was ANY doubt about whether the language was sound or if it had been properly vetted?  Come on now.

Jeff, please provide either a link or list of all the attorneys who assisted in any way with the development of this measure. That might help some out.

It's not that bad.

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

Fritz the Cat Said:

Plainsman,

Today was the pheasant opener and most sportsmen were out doors. Not you, sitting in your hidey hole pounding your key board all day....... Sad

For some reason the birds ran on us and busted a little wild this morning. This afternoon was much better.

LOL LOL Plainsman a sportsman!!!!   HA  HA

He is a hater

 

Pages