I’m not a farmer but I think that renewable installations have shown that farmers are business people like anyone else. They’ll diversify if they make money.
The issue with Oil and Gas is they flaunt regulation and the government lets them. If I were a farmer and I thought that I’d get backed by appropriate regulators if there were a leak or it impacted my operations in ways they said it wouldn’t then I would do it. The current state of regulatory pussification though probably means that farmers would be more worried about the real impact they’re not being told about than some ideological problem with it.
Farmers are pretty good at sorting the media hype from reality and making money in the middle. GMO, organics are both examples of that. Media hypes the anti GMO and pro organic crap whilst we all realise neither of them is intrinsically good or bad but both make us money
For those of you guys here who don’t know how immigration is handled in other countries, it certainly isn’t like this.
There is no catering to foreign nationals, if you are in the country illegally you are out end of story.
You can yell and scream racism, and they will laugh at you while they haul you off to jail. There is no other civilized country where this bullshit is tolerated.
“…There’s a middle ground. I think like anything illegal, its actually 100% better to make it legal and manage it rather than keep it illegal and try to ignore that it happens…”
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
This will be his “gimme” so he can say, “See? I’m WORKING with the Republicans!” As he rams amnesty up our collective ass.[/quote]
Exactly. [/quote]
lol you guys sound like fox news[/quote]
So, did you see the front page of the New York Times? Because it says Obama is doing Amnesty, just not using the term ‘amnesty’. It’s now ‘immigration reform’ and he is now ‘enforcing the laws as is his presidential duty’ if you watched his speech.
Perhaps not fox news after all.[/quote]
No matter what he does it will always be wrong for republicans.
[/quote]
How could granting citizenship to millions and millions of illegal aliens be right? Do you think Republicans would be cheering Romney or Bush if they were about to grant amnesty to millions of third world, unskilled, illiterate people, many of whom have committed serious criminal offences beyond just criminally entering the country? This seething mass in the South West that is radically transforming the country; is that all just a Republican fantasy? [/quote]
I didn’t say it was right. what do you think should be done with them?
[/quote]
In my country, conservative governments deport them. That’s a fundamental principle of the sovereignty of a nation state or any other sovereign body for that matter. It controls its geographical borders and decides who comes in and why; their duties and obligations to the host and the deportation of those here illegally and those who have breached their obligations and duties of residency or citizenship.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…There’s a middle ground. I think like anything illegal, its actually 100% better to make it legal and manage it rather than keep it illegal and try to ignore that it happens…”
Excellent post, Ozzy…
Mufasa [/quote]
It’s utter nonsense mufasa. The whole concept of “managing” something illegal is to just to repackage the illegal - amnesty. Amnesty is to illegitimately acquit criminals and to legitimise their crime and encourage further crime. Any industries or even individuals who knowingly or with reckless abandon employ illegal immigrants are coconspirators in a criminal enterprise against the people of the United States and the sovereignty of its borders. Legitimising crime; delegitimising sovereign borders; delegitimising the sovereignty of the people all dressed up as “reform”. That’s the subversive agenda of the amnesty crowd. Anyone who supports amnesty or “pro-immigration” bill is fundamentally undermining the sovereignty of the nation and legitimising and encouraging a reckless abandonment of judgement or else a hostile design against the people of the United States.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…There’s a middle ground. I think like anything illegal, its actually 100% better to make it legal and manage it rather than keep it illegal and try to ignore that it happens…”
Excellent post, Ozzy…
Mufasa [/quote]
It’s utter nonsense mufasa. The whole concept of “managing” something illegal is to just to repackage the illegal - amnesty. Amnesty is to illegitimately acquit criminals and to legitimise their crime and encourage further crime. Any industries or even individuals who knowingly or with reckless abandon employ illegal immigrants are coconspirators in a criminal enterprise against the people of the United States and the sovereignty of its borders. Legitimising crime; delegitimising sovereign borders; delegitimising the sovereignty of the people all dressed up as “reform”. That’s the subversive agenda of the amnesty crowd. Anyone who supports amnesty or “pro-immigration” bill is fundamentally undermining the sovereignty of the nation and legitimising and encouraging a reckless abandonment of judgement or else a hostile design against the people of the United States.
Edited
[/quote]
It’s clear your approach to anyone in the Country illegally.
I am curious as to what would be the way to deal with all the individuals; small and large businesses (some of who are probably screaming the loudest about deporting all of bums and criminals); and corporations that HIRE these undocumented people?
^^. That’s what I meant by cracking down on the businesses that knowingly employ and rely upon illegal labour. Truman closed down hundreds of agricultural businesses and farms in the South West and rounded up millions of illegal aliens in a short period of time and deported them. He faced powerful local interests in state from the business interests that relied upon illegal labour and overrided them.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^. That’s what I meant by cracking down on the businesses that knowingly employ and rely upon illegal labour. Truman closed down hundreds of agricultural businesses and farms in the South West and rounded up millions of illegal aliens in a short period of time and deported them. He faced powerful local interests in state from the business interests that relied upon illegal labour and overrided them.[/quote]
Shutting down Southwestern farms in the late 40’s and 50’s is one thing…
Shutting down Adler Seeds, BASF, Con-Agra, Hormel, Del Monte, Monsanto, Chiquita Brands, Marriott Hotels, Hilton Hotels, The Wyndham Group, The Choice Group…not to mention 1000’s of small to medium businesses…in 2014-15 is quite another.
I say do it. Take on the powerful vested interests with a grassroots political movement(tea party), deport illegals, fill the jobs that Americans won’t do with Americans by forcing people off welfare who won’t take those jobs. Attack crony capitalism in all its forms. All the special pleaders; whether they’re business interests, immigration “rights” groups, ethnic frontgroups, internationalists who oppose nation state sovereignty - all of them should be opposed. They are the hostile forces that seek to undermine the sovereignty of the people and the state.
[quote]toddrc wrote:
I have a question about property rights regarding the pipeline. No one has mentioned property rights. Do you support a foreign company using eminent domain to take land from people in the US for a global enterprise? I thought eminent domain was only used for the public good. If I was farmer, I would not want this thing on my land.
[/quote]
That’s an interesting argument, but do we have owners resisting the XL?
And how is this different from the Alaska pipeline?
[quote]toddrc wrote:
I have a question about property rights regarding the pipeline. No one has mentioned property rights. Do you support a foreign company using eminent domain to take land from people in the US for a global enterprise? I thought eminent domain was only used for the public good. If I was farmer, I would not want this thing on my land.
[/quote]
That’s an interesting argument, but do we have owners resisting the XL?
And how is this different from the Alaska pipeline?
[/quote]
Yes. If you do a google search, you will find that some owners are resisting.
[quote]toddrc wrote:
I have a question about property rights regarding the pipeline. No one has mentioned property rights. Do you support a foreign company using eminent domain to take land from people in the US for a global enterprise? I thought eminent domain was only used for the public good. If I was farmer, I would not want this thing on my land.
[/quote]
That’s an interesting argument, but do we have owners resisting the XL?
And how is this different from the Alaska pipeline?
[/quote]
Yes. If you do a google search, you will find that some owners are resisting.[/quote]
This is difficult to justify if you are a Libertarian. As an aside, it looks like Mr. Obama will use his pen and veto it. And there will not be enough Dems to get to 2/3s to override that veto. So it gets shelved for 2 more years? Where is the pressure from the unions here?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You fellers who are whining about oil and gas pipelines’ alleged negative effects on farmers have no clue what’s going on.[/quote]
Yep. Especially so when one considers the enormous amount of subsidies that farmers receive in conjunction with the compensation they would receive if the proposed pipeline passed through their land.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Don’t get me started on Birthright Citizenship.[/quote]
Citizenship should be made contigent on at least one of the parents being a naturalized citizen who contributes to the national revenue through taxes. [/quote]
