🚀 go-pugleaf

 

  Once again Phil Ronzone displays the symptoms of too many 
  Limbaughtomies:

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.
 >
 >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.
 >
 >Of course, these plantings aren't self-sustaining and need to
 >be repeated at intervals if productivity (for cattle) is to
 >be maintained.

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.  Add filaria, and half a dozen others, and you
  have to be an expert to find ANY NATIVE grasses at all!  

  Of course, I how how slippery Dittheads work. He will avoid his
  original argument, then he will claim the foreigners are better.
  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! 

  These whackos cannot be affected by mere facts and logic.

R> Because after all, if it was generally true, we'd hear great gobs of
R> these facts all the time. 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.
  
  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
  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!!  

  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 learn in school.
  The educated are laughing at you Phil.  Get a grip on reality.

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.  To check
  out reality is beyond ignorant people'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 that one?  Your'e a real expert in the land of 
  Limbaughtomyville aren't you Phil?
 
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!

 >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!

  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:

  I forget whether the figure is 2% or 5% of all beef comes
  from welfare grazing.  Either figure will give you a clue.
  Most ranchers don't get welfare grazing.  They pay market
  prices.
  --Doug

... You're a Dittohead parrot if you think Rush Limbaugh is really serious