Weiser in reference to the CBC:
================
No, I don't like ultra-leftist liberal propaganda.
====================

And you have evidence of this? Please share with us....

frtzw906

n 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Please post the relevant parts of the US and Canadian constitutions that
define federal vs state/provincial right and powers and demonstrate
your claim that US states have more power.

Look it up yourself. It's in the Amendments section.

The Canadian constitution has no amendments section.

Indeed. However, the US Constitution does.


You still haven't proved anything. You still make claims that you are
not prepared to support. Citing only the US constitution does not
"prove" anything in a comparison with other countries.

I live under the
government of the United States and no other.

You live in a fantasy world that has nothing to do with reality.

Of course I can. I just refuse to play into your specious logic.

The specious logic is yours - prove your ridiculous claims or
admit that US states do not have more power than Canadian Provinces
or EU countries.

Mike

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The 2nd Amendment does not require one to be in a militia in order to
exercise the RKBA protected by the 2nd Amendment.

So I guess that part about "A well-regulated Militia being necessary
to the security of a free State" is the part you've never bothered to
read?

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
====================
Why? What do you know about agriculture? Anything? Have you ever grown
anything for profit? Have you ever grown anything other than Bluegrass
and
weeds? Why would you presume, in your ignorance, to dictate to
agriculture
what it's water needs are?
=======================

I have grown nothing but, I never knew that one had to have given birth
to a child to become an OBGYN.

False analogy.

That little bit notwithstanding, as you
guessed, I know nothing about agriculture. But the issue at hand is
not agricultural but, rather, economic.

As you point out, it would be ignorant to me to "dictate to agriculture
what it's water needs are". So I don't.

And yet you did. You said that agriculture should be reduced by 50% to save
water for other uses.


I do, however, point out that there are too many cases where industries
(and in the initial post, by way of example, I just grabbed
agri-busness out of a hat; I could well have picked any number of other
industries.) do not pay the full price for the commodities they
consume.

Why should they? If they can get a discount, why, that's pure capitalistic
profit preservation.

If I remember correctly, the issue was less about
agri-business and more about subsidies to industries.

Which you turned to a discussion of water and agriculture.


The environmental costs of California's agricultural use of water are
nowhere reflected in costs to the firms producing oranges in the
desert. That's a subsidy: from the citizens of the USA (it's their
water) to the firm.

Ah, now it's turned from economics to "environmental costs." Please try to
pick one thesis and stick to it.

Or, was this your subtext all along. I suspect that it has nothing to do
with economics or subsidies, but rather you are using those arguments as
stalking horses for your real agenda, which is "environmental costs." I
translate that, in the context of RBP, to mean that you want the water to
remain in the river and not be diverted for agricultural (or any other) use
so that YOU can use it for recreation.

So, when, pray tell, do YOU plan to pay the "full price" for the commodity
you are consuming: in-channel river water?

Are you suggesting that you should be billed by the acre-foot for the water
left in the river that you use for recreation?

Do you have any idea how much that's going to cost you?

Weiser says:
==================
So, when all the pools and artificially supported landscaping in
California is gone, then you can feel free to talk about rationing
agriculture.
===============

At this point, I have no desire to be argumentative. I'd be interested,
though, if you have these figures, how the total California acreage in
lawns compares to total agricultural acreage. Further, what might the
gallons/acre comparisons be between lawns/swimming pools versus
agricultural fields?

I don't know the lawn/pool acreage ratio, but the point is that water used
for recreation and aesthetics does not produce anything while the water used
for agriculture does. This is not to say that there is not significant
conservation to be had in agricultural irrigation methods. There is. But the
infrastructure is extremely expensive and maintenance is expensive. Still,
one of the subsidies the federal government offers is assistance to farmers
who want to install water-saving irrigation systems like sideroll and
center-pivot sprinkler systems to replace the admittedly inefficient but
very cheap flood irrigation.


Weiser says:
======================
In the meantime, I suggest that you begin auditing your eating habits
and
determine the actual origin of every calorie you consume. Get back to
us on
how much of it comes from California.
==================

Too right, Scott! At this time of year, if it's not from California, it
is very likely from Mexico. And I'll be the first to admit that I am
the beneficiary of the water-related subsidies we're talking about. So,
while I have a chance here in the forum, I'd like to thank the people
of California and the USA for taking some jingle out of their jeans and
transferring that jingle into mine (and the shareholders of the
agri-busnesses).

So, as I do my audit, as you suggested, I am well aware of the fact
that I am aiding and abetting the destruction of California's water
resources. If, on the other hand, the price of Calfornia oranges
reflected the "true" cost of production, I might seek out substitute
products like BC-grown apples.

Cheers, and thanks again for your largesse,

Well, I think "destruction" is a strong term to use. Water is a necessity of
life, and it's never really "destroyed," even when it's broken down into
hydrogen and oxygen, because they recombine to create water again.

The fact that you, or other Californians might not be able to use it is of
only minor interest.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If we close the border with Canada, it will be CLOSED. Nobody in, nobody
out.

You won't be missed.

It's your problem, fix it yourself. There is no reason that we should
respect and defend the US border if the US refuses to respect anyone
elses'.

Good fences make good neighbours. Fix your fence, dickhead.

Mike

Weiser says:
=====================
Which can be made a no-way street when the costs exceed the benefits.
It
won't take too many terrorist incursions from Canada to make it worth
it to
close the border.
================

Again, I think you truly underestimate the magnitude of this trade.
Just the dependency of Michigan GM plants on components made in Ontario
ensures that GM will use its considerable political clout to keep the
trade moving. Now multiply by the clout of Ford, Weyerhaeuser, etc
etc.... This border is not closing anytime soon.

frtzw906

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I believe that the needs of agriculture for water have been well defined by
hundreds, even thousands of years of cultivation of crops, and that you have
little credibility when it comes to criticising agriculture.

Turning desert into farmland is not the same thing as farming in an area
that has a natural level of rainfall and water that supports agriculture.
Around here, we farm without draining rivers dry.

It's you that clearly knows nothing about _real_ agriculture.

Mike

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

In all three places, violent crime has
jumped markedly and continues to rise at record rates BECAUSE your masters
in government banned the ownership and possession of defensive firearms by
law-abiding citizens.

Bull**** again. The crime rates in Canada specifically has been falling
for decades. The murder rates are falling as well.

Your fantasy world is not where the rest of us live. You should take that
into acount before making one of your ludicrous rants.

Mike

On 24-Feb-2005, "KMAN" wrote:

FYI:

Unfair - your trying to confuse him with facts!

:-)

Mike

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nope.

Prove it.

Don't have to. Innocent till proven guilty.

Idiot - you are afraid to address the facts.

International law forbids invading any country. End of story. The US
does not respect other countries' borders, hence we shouldn't bother
respecting theirs.


Ibid.

Ditto

Mike