Not trying to be obtuse at all.
From the USMS website:
The offices of U.S. Marshals and Deputy Marshal were created by the first Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the same legislation that established the Federal judicial system. The Marshals were given extensive authority to support the federal courts within their judicial districts and to carry out all lawful orders issued by judges.
In this context, "congress", counts as government. The "judiciary act", counts, as having been established by "government".
Unless im missing something. What am i missing?
Besides, using the strictest definition of a government:
gov·ern·ment
/ˈɡəvər
mənt/Submit
noun
1.
the governing body of a nation, state, or community.
[guhv-ern-muh nt, ‐er-muh nt]
ExamplesWord Origin
See more synonyms for government on Thesaurus.com
noun
the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration:
If the people of a community, forming a group, with the purpose of establishing a way to project force, and compel others to follow rules, is the definition of government law enforcement, then government law enforcement is thousands of years old.
Cavemen formed government, and policed.
From the USMS website:
The offices of U.S. Marshals and Deputy Marshal were created by the first Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the same legislation that established the Federal judicial system. The Marshals were given extensive authority to support the federal courts within their judicial districts and to carry out all lawful orders issued by judges.
In this context, "congress", counts as government. The "judiciary act", counts, as having been established by "government".
Unless im missing something. What am i missing?
Besides, using the strictest definition of a government:
gov·ern·ment
/ˈɡəvər
mənt/Submitnoun
1.
the governing body of a nation, state, or community.
[guhv-ern-muh nt, ‐er-muh nt]
ExamplesWord Origin
See more synonyms for government on Thesaurus.com
noun
the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration:
If the people of a community, forming a group, with the purpose of establishing a way to project force, and compel others to follow rules, is the definition of government law enforcement, then government law enforcement is thousands of years old.
Cavemen formed government, and policed.
Last edited:
The Marshals service is primarily responsible for the transport of federal prisoners, serving federal warrants, recovering federal fugitives.
The Texas Rangers were established in 1835
The official, as in estblished by the city government, New York City Police Department was established in 1845.
There are too many for me to reasonable look up.
But, i get the point you guys are making. Its rediculously out of control. There are thousands of law enforcemt agencies, overly redundant and the cost is a massive economic drain.
The Texas Rangers were established in 1835
The official, as in estblished by the city government, New York City Police Department was established in 1845.
There are too many for me to reasonable look up.
But, i get the point you guys are making. Its rediculously out of control. There are thousands of law enforcemt agencies, overly redundant and the cost is a massive economic drain.
Totally okay with sheriffs and marshals the rest are road pirates, murderous criminals mafias. and a threat to the republic
Over 50 separate federal police forces. Picking the least controversial one doesn’t make whatever your point is.
Honest answer. My family farmed for well over a century and I've done my share. I've also worked in the ag chemical field off and on over the last 35 years.
My comments on climate change research have been posted on the Hide a few times. I have done research in atmospheric chemistry that was funded by climate change money. I flew out of Veracruz during MIRAGE and was blown away by so many of the researchers talking about climate change research as a field that looked to be drying up. IIRC, there were 153 researchers on MIRAGE and I only heard one of them (a university prof from Mexico) preaching about global warming. Every conversation I had with PIs revolved around the need - literally - for about a million times higher data density in order to make a correlation. I realize this is heresy from the science side, because if you say that we don't have direct evidence, it might lead to cuts in funding.
Sure it is. Some of the links I posted talk about various contributing sources. The problem is that as municipalities have been working to clean up their shit, the farms have been using much more fertilizer.
Last edited:
If you do come from a farm background you are either stupid or just being a troll
The Google search "sewage spill" tells you all you need to know about the sewage treatment plants that you say "are cleaning up their act". 100 gallons of cow manure runs over a manure pit and it's a disaster with massive clean up and fines. 10 million gallons of raw human manure goes right into a river and it's a minor blip on the news and that's it.
Farmers are using using less fertilizer and less tillage. Fertilizer applications are split and precisely applied. The fertilizer grows a crop that is harvested. All those yards and golf courses aren't harvesting anything.
If you're that dense that you don't think the overpopulated wildlife contribute to the pollution, I can see why you are no longer farming. Even your environmentalist buddies talk about it. Il detract that earlier "never" and replace it wait a "rarely"
The Google search "sewage spill" tells you all you need to know about the sewage treatment plants that you say "are cleaning up their act". 100 gallons of cow manure runs over a manure pit and it's a disaster with massive clean up and fines. 10 million gallons of raw human manure goes right into a river and it's a minor blip on the news and that's it.
Farmers are using using less fertilizer and less tillage. Fertilizer applications are split and precisely applied. The fertilizer grows a crop that is harvested. All those yards and golf courses aren't harvesting anything.
If you're that dense that you don't think the overpopulated wildlife contribute to the pollution, I can see why you are no longer farming. Even your environmentalist buddies talk about it. Il detract that earlier "never" and replace it wait a "rarely"
Last edited:
I'm 5th generation and put in 30 years.
I am in a fairly high competition area of the farming community.
Making a general statement about over fertilization isn't resonable.
NH3 is expensive enough that over application is more than rare in this locale.
For reference not uncommon to hear of 300 bu/acre corn and 100 bu/acre beans.
With the cash rent prices pissing away fert/inputs will not pencil around here.
It has been more than popular to point the finger at the most productive/efficient farmers in the world.
Nitrates in watersheds surrounded by expensive housing has many origins.
R
LOL.
That's hilarious. It's not hard to find real data that shows just how wrong you are.
^ ok you really are retarded. Your time frame was of sewage plants cleaning up their act. So last 20-30 years. Tops.
Let's see your raw sewage and human livestock charts from 1900 to now.
And more fertilizer use does not equal more n runoff.
Retard
Edit.
It all makes sense now. You're a .gov worker and you smoke a little too much of Colorado's finest. Probably in academia or a nrcs type.
Let's see your raw sewage and human livestock charts from 1900 to now.
And more fertilizer use does not equal more n runoff.
Retard
Edit.
It all makes sense now. You're a .gov worker and you smoke a little too much of Colorado's finest. Probably in academia or a nrcs type.
Last edited:
If you'd read my previous posts on this topic on this thread, you'd see the links.
You're desperate. When the name-calling starts, it's clear the big man has nothing to stand on but empty words.
Your humor is so good, you should do stand-up.
You bruise easily.
Not even close.
Last edited:
Should read:
"...consolidated and expanded as an industry while using less fertilizers and pesticides."
Interestingly, there are some surprising studies done on the effect of the human population's sewage containing active elements of prescription medications. I recall reading not too long ago that all the fish in the Shenandoah were on Prozac and it was effecting population numbers. I ain't been able to eat a thing out of that water for the last 20 years anyway.
You need new glasses. Click on the last link I gave in post 229.
See the plots above.
You'll find opiates, birth control hormones, etc., etc. Our rivers are sick, period. Good call not eating fish out of the Shenandoah.
Last edited:
You need a graph that shows yeild to NH# application rates...
Over the last 40 years should do.
BTW- Who do you work for?
R
Doesn't matter. All that extra fertilizer ends up in the gulf
None of it is in the grain or fodder
this stuff is like global warming. The Mississippi was muddy way before America was settled. There is natural fertilizer mineralization and erosion. But it's all farmers fault. They are stupid and just dump fertilizer on the fields.
If that's what you need to get your warm and fuzzy, go for it. That does not change the fertilizer runoff total load on the rivers. I said above that I understand the history of improving yields. I said also that American farmers are feeding more than their share and that there are other sources of N other than fertilizer. Deersniper's rant that started this off-topic sub-thread was not accurate regarding CSO's, so keep on ignoring the truth.
Jerry, you'll need to click on the link I'm pasting in below. Move your mouse over the next line and click.
https://ourworldindata.org/fertilizer-and-pesticides#fertilizer-application-rates
I can go for at least a year, maybe more. If you are making $80k-$100k+ a year and you have no savings then something is wrong. I don’t even make that and like I said I coukd go a year. Three weeks shouldn’t be an issue, really. The dems are making this out to be way worse than it is.
They don’t want to pay for a wall, fine, I don’t want to pay for all the shit I pay for either. Sadly, I don’t get much of a choice do I?
I am just trolling you a bit, I dont care how much of this shit they dump on the fields I just want a corn muffin...
I will say this though if we would stop sending our excess food outside the country we wouldn't have so many fucking people in the world and so many illegals coming here, We are interfering with Darwin.
I will say this though if we would stop sending our excess food outside the country we wouldn't have so many fucking people in the world and so many illegals coming here, We are interfering with Darwin.
Last edited:
How desperate is Deersniper? So desperate that he's fabricating claims ("99%") that I never made.
well I think any data on nitrogen from 1880 is kind of a guess at best or an outright lie, ala Greenpeace al gore style.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
I just seen that, its the World Bank Chart,,,,yeah that is a very reputable organization, looking out for individual liberty and the family farm since they were created by the globalists 70 years ago,,, take it to the bank per se.
I see application rates nothing on yield to coincide.
BTW- in America we use pounds and acres. Maybe that is telling about your graph.
PSS- Here's your boy Federico that works for the world bank:
https://blogs.worldbank.org/team/alvaro-federico-barra
R
Last edited:
Ok not 99%. Well call that the vast majority instead. Because farms are the only thing you lay much blame to. Everything else is inconsequential or "being well funded "
I'd like to recommend you take a rudimentary reading comprehension class or maybe just quote what I've said. But quit fabritrolling.
FIFY
I guess you need to learn to scroll.
You think the new data is bogus? Because that's where the problem is at - not back in 1880. If you think the new data is bogus, show me more accurate data or don't bother with your Al Gore bullshit. I detest that fucker.
Last edited:
lol world bank bs you're a joke.
And your chart^ lol. Whole lot of cereals being grown in the Midwest. And everyone rolls the fertizer to them. Cutting lodged wheat and barley is so much fun.
Starting to lean towards the paid troll angle.
And your chart^ lol. Whole lot of cereals being grown in the Midwest. And everyone rolls the fertizer to them. Cutting lodged wheat and barley is so much fun.
Starting to lean towards the paid troll angle.
I hope you don't spend much time in casinos. Your gut instincts would empty your wallet and leave you no bucks for ammo.
If you don't like the World Bank data, let's see your global data. I'm sure you have an archive of figures you compiled in your spare time.
stop with the anger, it shows you are unhinged a bit,, unhinged = Al Gore.... New Data from 1880 and from the world bank, yes I think its bogus.. But I am on your side. I think farmers need to take a break for a few years, no fertilizer use at all, will cause massive starvation and rid us of half the worlds population, maybe we wont need that fence. I think the country side families can grow their own food pretty well, we can starve our city populations to death... which is where most people who worry about how much fertilizer is being used live.... we can cure so so many problems just with the unintended consequences of your bullshit religion so quickly,,,,, go to the world bank and model some drout starvation models to see what half the food production disappearance result would be. I support your efforts here 100%. Let me know how I can help.
Anger? You're off 180 - I'm laughing. Where was your anger management message when I was being called a retard? This is hilarious - you lecturing on anger.
Y'all want to diss on the links I put up. How 'bout you man up and show me more credible data?
Sure, starve them out - sounds like a solid plan for the American farmer. I do like the radical population reduction plan though.
Oh so you are retarded or was that somebody bullying you and being a meanie?
Just because you put up a power point chart by the bank of the globalists does not mean it is correct or even close to correct, you are the one making assertions that they could measure fertilizer usage back to 1880, that should be a sign to anyone who is a thinking person.
Just because you put up a power point chart by the bank of the globalists does not mean it is correct or even close to correct, you are the one making assertions that they could measure fertilizer usage back to 1880, that should be a sign to anyone who is a thinking person.
I know you dont need my help, but i don't want this thread to die. I want to make sure i have something to read tomorrow. Likely be a slow day.
Attachments
Last edited:
The bear pit is great for ones self esteem. It makes me feel arrogant and superior. ?
Your data set is convoluted to say the least.
As you haven't understood my previous post I'll FIFY.
Show a NH3 input pounds actual per bushels raised per acre.
I'll bet there is a version from the USDA.
You have been more than a little shy about your current vocation.
Quoting World Bank info has been fun and all but when did they become the "Authority" on agribusiness?
My thoughts are it meets your specific ideas.
List current vocation and we'll see if/why you have an agenda.
R
Duh. What leftist fucktard is not arrogant and feels superior in their own ignorance?
I’m glad you feel superior though, because you would probably kill yourself if you stared reality in the face.
Not sure how we got so off thread. So I will comment.
The reason the Dems and Media are harping on workers not getting paid is because it is the ONLY negative to the shut down.
Everything else is a positive. Like most hard working Americans I have not noticed anything different in my life.
The longer it goes it hurts the dems more I think, could be wrong on that but oh well.
The reason the Dems and Media are harping on workers not getting paid is because it is the ONLY negative to the shut down.
Everything else is a positive. Like most hard working Americans I have not noticed anything different in my life.
The longer it goes it hurts the dems more I think, could be wrong on that but oh well.
The amazing part is that Qatar has any arable land. Who would have guessed. Sand is shitty soil.
Carry on.
A fucktard. Is that like a cross between a fuck and a tard? Who also happens to be liberal?
With such a logical and well thought out position, im obviously way out of my league here, arguing with you guys
I'm going to confess something though. I cheated. ?
I resorted to -looking things up-, and verifying that the information was correct, --before--, posting.
I know, i know. Dick move!
In 1900 the US population was appx 60'000,000. 60 percent of which lived in rural communities.
Currently, the population is 325,000,000, and 80% are urban city dwellers.
Any guess as to the percentages of the population gainfully employed in 1900 vs 2018? How about the percentage on welfare then vs now? The percentage of children raised in a single parent household?
So, you guys are saying that the same law enforcement methods employed in 1900 would be effective now?
Why would i ever question your logic, its so, well, logical! ?
The trend im seeing here, is that if one uses data, from sources, (obviously faked data, cause it disagrees with the opinion of, some guy), then that person is a retard, oe perhaps a fucktard. If they get all sciencey, throwing out math n shit, well, then they are the worst thing of all, a retarded liberal fucktard!
Shocked! Shocked i tell you! That the liberals like to talk down to our side, with the amount of thought that goes into your opinions! Thinking they are so superior! The gall!
You guys are awesome!
With such a logical and well thought out position, im obviously way out of my league here, arguing with you guys
I'm going to confess something though. I cheated. ?
I resorted to -looking things up-, and verifying that the information was correct, --before--, posting.
I know, i know. Dick move!
In 1900 the US population was appx 60'000,000. 60 percent of which lived in rural communities.
Currently, the population is 325,000,000, and 80% are urban city dwellers.
Any guess as to the percentages of the population gainfully employed in 1900 vs 2018? How about the percentage on welfare then vs now? The percentage of children raised in a single parent household?
So, you guys are saying that the same law enforcement methods employed in 1900 would be effective now?
Why would i ever question your logic, its so, well, logical! ?
The trend im seeing here, is that if one uses data, from sources, (obviously faked data, cause it disagrees with the opinion of, some guy), then that person is a retard, oe perhaps a fucktard. If they get all sciencey, throwing out math n shit, well, then they are the worst thing of all, a retarded liberal fucktard!
Shocked! Shocked i tell you! That the liberals like to talk down to our side, with the amount of thought that goes into your opinions! Thinking they are so superior! The gall!
You guys are awesome!
Last edited:
Not at all. You couldn't be more obvious trying to google/educate yourself without any experience, actually knowing what you're talking about, or even having a point. It isn't that you're stupid. It's that you seem to know so much that isn't so. Believing everything you google on the internet may make you seem intelligent in certain circles. This isn't one of them, which makes your arrogance even more clownish.
