🚀 go-pugleaf

"Doug Bashford" <playing@work.edu> wrote in message
news:105t289nhlen6d@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Philosophy, Trolls, Dittoheads, & Welfare Cowboys
>
>   Sometimes old topics seem new.  Like Welfare Cowboys.
>   On the subject of Holy Cows at the Public Trough
>   once again Phil Ronzone displays the symptoms of too many
>   Limbaughtomies, that is: All of reality is just a matter
>   of (political) opinion:
>
> R> (Don Baccus) writes: >Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
>  >
>  r>>So let me get this straight -- the farmer PAYS the Federal
>  r>>Government to use the land, and THAT's welfare?
>
>  >They pay far LESS in grazing fees than are SPENT by the
>  >agencies managing those lands. Monies spent on these lands
>  >include projects to replace native plants of the sage-steppe
>  >with crested wheatgrass.
>
>  More Republican welfare for the rich?  Ho hum....
>
>  >The last such planting I studied (the numbers are available
>  >for those who seek them) cost the taxpayer roughly $250,000.
>  >This was to benefit a single rancher who runs about 3,000
>  >head, paying about $16,000 a year in grazing fees. This
>  >doesn't even cover the cost of funds.
>
> A quarter million.
> So $3 gets a welfare cowboy $250.
> And that's just in planting costs.
> But he pays!     ( $3. )  Big wow.
>
>  >Of course, these plantings aren't self-sustaining and need to
>  >be repeated at intervals if productivity (for cattle) is to
>  >be maintained.
>
> Phil Ronzone:
> R> Don, I believe you are a liar. While it is entirely possible that
> R> some Federal idiot shelled out money to plant expensive grasses for
> R> other cattle to eat, it is, IF TRUE, likely a rare experience.
>
> R> Urban folklore.
>
>   <Chuckle>  Crested wheatgrass and Russian cheatgrass are
>   urban folklore?  <Rolling on the floor!>
>
>   Those foreign grasses have all but replaced California's native
>   bunch grasses.  Typical for the West.  Add filaria, and half a
>   dozen others, and you have to be an expert to find ANY NATIVE
>   grasses at all!  Unlike talk-radio, this is no exaggeration.
>
>   As we have explained, welfare cows are perhaps more destructive
>   than all clear-cutting combined.  What most people think of
>   as natural is really a mere remnant of the natural.
>
>   Of course, I how how slippery Dittoheads work. He will avoid his
>   original argument, then he will claim the foreign plants are
>   better than American.  (Any argument.)
>   That will be shot down, he will find some other argument extracted
>   entirely from his self centered self-important, ignorant head, that
>   will be shot down, so will squeal:  R> Urban folklore!
>   Back to day one....  then repeat it all over again.
>
>   These whackos cannot be affected by mere facts and logic.  They
>   have religion.  They have Rush and other's Rich-Boy propaganda
>   as their Bible.

Could that rich boy you are refering to be John Forbes Kerry the french
aristocrat. Whom all you rich hating dumbo's follow like lemmings.


  They jealously guard their dogma because to
>   examine reality has the potential to expose the fact that they
>   have been lead around like a welfare cow with a golden ring
>   through her nose.  It's comfy in the dark.  If ignorance is bliss,
>   these guys must be ecstatic.
>
> R> Because after all, if it was generally true,
> R> we'd hear great gobs of these facts all the time.
> R>  It'd be a great thing to clobber the
> R> producing people with (from the non-producing Luddites).
>
>   More unsupported armchair postulating?  That is the polite term.
>   Amazing the support one can draw from thin air.
>
>   He does not recognize that this system is so ingrained in
>   the Welfare Cowboy way of life that nobody even raises an
>   eyebrow!   He does not recognize that he is so ignorant that
>   he is ignorant that he is ignorant.  Common dittohead delusions
>   that all of reality is merely a matter of opinion.  Since he
>   is ignorant and has no facts, he assumes that everybody who
>   does is a liar!!  He probably assumes everybody else is armchair
>   postulating too and he with the best imagination wins!  Sorry,
>   your opinion has no effect on reality.
>
>   Here are some facts for you.  (You will stop reading now, and
>   delete, and make your cute, snappy kneejerk "conservative"
>   comeback.)    From the "Fresno Bee" newspaper,
>   July 27 '95, page B6; subheadline: "Congress prefers `cowboy
>   socialism'":
>               Clinton wanted to raise fees from
>        $1.86 to $4.28 per cow+calf/mo (AUM).  Most private
>        landowners charge $10.00/AUM.  While the general public
>        like campers, hunters, and fishermen are expected to pay
>        more, and be more careful, the opposite is true for
>        those who run cattle on public land.  "The new
>        legislation would give ranchers virtual carte blanche
>        to violate what standards do exist."  A BLM official
>        said it would be "virtually impossible to revoke a grazing
>        permit once granted."  Only three percent of the national
>        herd are grazed on federal land.
>          ... "Among its beneficiaries: William
>        Hewlett and David Packard, two of America's richest men,
>        who graze 100,000 federal acres in Idaho; the Metropolitan
>        Life Insurance Co.; the Mormon Church; and a Japanese
>        conglomerate."
>
>   Does that sound like true free-market?  Or goodies for the
>   rich?  They are NOT the same thing, you know.  Have you ever
>   considered that?  Think about it.
>
>   "Class Warfare!", "Class Envy!" Rush would shout.  But facts
>   are facts.  Republicans, no matter what Rush, Newt, and the
>   religious Right claim, *IS* the party for the rich, and against
>   the working man.  Facts are facts.  Over and over again.
>   What many of us find hard to believe, is how you guys can believe
>   that black is white so easily.
>
>   Thanks Phil for shouting our points so effectively.  The facts
>   are out there for all to see.  All but you, because you would
>   never do any research that might show that your Messiah Rush
>   is nothing more than a political comedian.  That would destroy
>   your most valuable possession: your talk-radio "EIB diploma",
>   -- your very sense of reality that you failed to get in school.
>   The educated are laughing at you Phil.  Get a grip on reality.
>   Rush's World has been extracted from thin air.
>
> R> Since you have a fine track record as a liar, we'll just have to
> cage
> R> this as another "Don-ism".
>
>   I don't see that you have much choice, Phil.  That is your
>   only recourse.  To check
>   out reality is beyond the proudly ignorant's capability.  No
>   doubt you use this same mental filtering when you read
>   "the damned LIBRILL newspaper" in your area.  All of your
>   information is filtered BEFORE you can even analyze it.
>
>   Typical of whackos.  Why bother with reality when you know it
>   all in talk-radio-land?  Your'e a real expert in the land of
>   Limbaughtomyville aren't you Phil?   That's real comfy.
>
> R> Thaks for helping my point, as some idot claimed that there
> R> were other people willing to pay more.
>
>   What does "below market value" mean, Phil?  -- Duu-uh!
>
>  >Conservationists have made it clear that they're willing to
>  >lease some of the more sensitive federal grazing lands, if
>  >the law were changed. Some states do lease lands to the
>  >highest bidder. In Oregon, the rules were recently changed to
>  >prevent that. This was after the very first winning bid on an
>  >allotment was submitted by a conservationists. The ranchers
>  >were furious, and got the rules changed so we can no longer
>  >submit bids.
>
> R> Well then it is a bad law.
>
>    BINGO!  Read this: WELFARE FOR THE RICH and powerful.
>    How could it be a GOOD law?  The problem is, if we
>    "bad guys" say something, you pre-filter every word we say.
>    It must be false, cause that is what Rush told you to think.
>    Over and over again.....
>
>  >So, in short, yes, we're willing to pay as much, or even a
>  >bit more, than cattlemen.
>
> R> Then keep at it.
>
>  >I realize you find facts confusing, Phil, but perhaps other
>  >readers of these posts will find them useful.
>
> R> Oh no, facts are fine. It's just that you have so few of them Don.
>
>   Your making progress Phil, don't blow it.
>
>  >It's slang. It is, technically, a subsidy, not direct
>  >support, but the result is the same: you and I pay, and the
>  >rancher receives.
>
>   Here in Fresno we have something called "workfare".  That is
>   more descriptive than "welfare cowboys" or "welfare loggers"
>   but I fear nobody outside of Fresno knows what it means.
>   Handouts for work outside of the normal market.  The difference
>   is, "workfare" is a temporary thing.   "Welfare cowboys" and
>   "welfare loggers" have no intention of going away, and you
>   right wing dittoheads think that is just fine!  Why?  Because
>   your Messiah tells you so!  Where is the logic?  The reality?
>
>   There is nothing in my power to convince you this is true.
>   Phil, you are the only one who can find the facts.  You will
>   filter me as a liar, or a "LIBRILL", or what ever, for ever.
>   Reality is of your own making.  But don't settle for having
>   a political comedian, spoon-feed his gags to you as reality.
>   Check it out your self.
>
> R> Really? Ever consider the costs on meat production? Suppose we end
> all
> R> use of Federal grazing lands, and we thus get:
>
>   3% of American beef comes from welfare grazing.   Most ranchers
>   are NOT welfare cowboys.  If we ignore their subsidized water
>   and grain, etc, -- they pay market prices.
>   --Doug
>
> ... You're a Dittohead parrot if you think Rush Limbaugh is really
> serious
>
>
> ==========================
>    Yep, Richard Ottolini got philosophical on 20 Jul 95  14:13:03
>
> O> From: stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
>
> O> Well, just look at what a century of grazing has done to the hills
> O> in the San Francisco area.  Almost every visible grassland is
> grazed.
> O> On one hand if you compare these fields to protected fields like
> O> Stanford's Jasper Ridge reserve on some ungrazed hills in Southern
> O> California, the San Francisco hills have been stripped of most
> variety
> O> of flowers and many kind of trees.  Whats left are some dandelions,
> O> clovers, and poppies.
>
> O> On the other hand, people haven't really noticed nor complained,
> O> because it still pretty.
>
>   I think that is how this conversation started.  Unless one
>   has the knowledge and awareness to know what should be,
>   people do not complain.  It looks "pretty", it is all they
>   have come to believe nature really is.  Multi-generational
>   environmental degradation is rarely noticed.
>
>   Some will say;  -- Then why complain?  Why should we not let
>   it continue?  Perhaps there is no logical explanation to
>   this argument.  (But it is not an argument that biologists
>   would engage in.)
>
>   It is truly amazing that prisoners can adapt to their
>   lifestyle, and amazing that they feel fearful when their
>   time is finally served.
>
>   If we were all born in prison, it is a fact that nobody
>   would complain.  Somebody from the outside world with the
>   knowledge and awareness to know what should be, would
>   probably be seen as a whiner.  Somebody who wants people
>   to spend energy that will disturb the comfortable life.
>
>   Those are the facts, those are what ecologists (the scientists)
>   have to live with.  But they do have a vision of reality.  And
>   not much patience with people like Phil.  In his innocent
>   ignorance, he is as much a prison guard as the professionals
>   who turned him out.
>   --Doug
>
>
> ... --------  From Dead Central California  ----------
>
>
>