Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Joni Ernst's family took in $460,000 in farm subsidies.

Joni Ernst's family took in $460,000 in farm subsidies.

+9
knothead
KarlRove
Sal
TEOTWAWKI
polecat
Floridatexan
ZVUGKTUBM
othershoe1030
boards of FL
13 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Our understanding of the natural world improves as time moves forward.

Sure it does.... I think the so-called "consensus" on this didn't arise until Al Gore wrote his book on the subject. But I went to grad-school studying the sciences in the early 90s (I was 40 years old when I got my advanced degree), and climate-change should have been a front burner issue by then, and it wasn't even on 'warm.'

This is a movement that came out of nowhere, seeks political-power above all else, and wants to rule all aspects of people's lives. When people start talking about how the oceans might swamp our coastal cities in 20-30 years if draconian measures are not taken now, I have to call BS on that kind of fearmongering.

I am a firm believer in moving away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy, but not because of climate change--because of eventual scarcity of fossil fuels. I believe that movement will largely take place in the next 50-70 years, and I don't think we will see a catastrophic change in our climate before then.  

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

polecat wrote:So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?- John Fugelsang

Which means she endured the years of good, but ineffective President Jerry Ford then suffered under the disaster of President Jimmy Carter before the economic up turn during President Ronald Reagan whose policies led to a quarter of a century of economic growth.

Yep.

knothead

knothead

Markle wrote:
polecat wrote:So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?- John Fugelsang

Which means she endured the years of good, but ineffective President Jerry Ford then suffered under the disaster of President Jimmy Carter before the economic up turn during President Ronald Reagan whose policies led to a quarter of a century of economic growth.

Yep.

It was also the beginning of the economic quagmire we are still in . . . .

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

knothead wrote:
Markle wrote:
polecat wrote:So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?- John Fugelsang

Which means she endured the years of good, but ineffective President Jerry Ford then suffered under the disaster of President Jimmy Carter before the economic up turn during President Ronald Reagan whose policies led to a quarter of a century of economic growth.

Yep.

It was also the beginning of the economic quagmire we are still in . . . .  

Yes, Reagan sought cheap prosperity at the expense of future generations. He showed Congress it could run on massive deficit spending, and Congress fell in love with it. All presidents from either party have since followed Reagan's example, and look where we are now. I am sorry I voted for him.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
KarlRove wrote:by polecat Today at 12:12 pm
So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?
----
Wow how illiterate in US History are you exactly ?


Ho...ly...shit...

Don't you mean 'Waming' Shit?

After all one must follow ones fanatical faith unwaveringly.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tdu4uKSZ3M

Smile


There is nothing "fanatical" or faith based in acknowledging the unanimous global scientific consensus on climate change.  

Not that this has absolutely anything to do with this thread.

Joni Ernst's family took in $460,000 in farm subsidies. - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSObY0yvuaaJ7vSAcjDvj2FLg0ebTbp_4XSPfF-3igF3P7TfZ9N

Is that why they don't throw out the theory after the predicted model fails the test.

Yep! That's really sound science ya' got there bubba.

I may not know all that much but...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2HRrjpiM7Y

Very Happy


This really isn't that complicated.  There is a field of scientific study that focuses on the earth's climate.  There is a 100% consensus among respected organizations within that field with regard to climate change and man's part in it.

Note that I'm not talking about any specific predictive model here.  I am instead talking about the broad scientific consensus on climate change.  That is, "Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities."

I will repeat a line that republican senators like to use lately, "I'm no scientist".  As a result, I'll defer - again - to the unanimous global consensus that exists among organizations that study this field.  This is the exact opposite of "fanatical" or "faith based" behavior.  I am deferring to the unanimous consensus among the scientific community, as opposed to right-wing american politicians and AM radio hosts.

LIAR.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
KarlRove wrote:by polecat Today at 12:12 pm
So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?
----
Wow how illiterate in US History are you exactly ?


Ho...ly...shit...



Don't you mean 'Waming' Shit?

After all one must follow ones fanatical faith unwaveringly.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tdu4uKSZ3M

Smile


There is nothing "fanatical" or faith based in acknowledging the unanimous global scientific consensus on climate change.  

Not that this has absolutely anything to do with this thread.

Is that why they don't throw out the theory after the predicted model fails the test.

Yep! That's really sound science ya' got there bubba.

I may not know all that much but...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2HRrjpiM7Y

Very Happy


This really isn't that complicated.  There is a field of scientific study that focuses on the earth's climate.  There is a 100% consensus among respected organizations within that field with regard to climate change and man's part in it.  

Note that I'm not talking about any specific predictive model here.  I am instead talking about the broad scientific consensus on climate change.  That is, "Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities."

I will repeat a line that republican senators like to use lately, "I'm no scientist".  As a result, I'll defer - again - to the unanimous global consensus that exists among organizations that study this field.  This is the exact opposite of "fanatical" or "faith based" behavior.  I am deferring to the unanimous consensus among the scientific community, as opposed to right-wing american politicians and AM radio hosts.

So what you're saying is that the 'global warming' scientists and the people that follow them are fanatical in their faith even though no predicted model has meet the gestalt of proof they require for their unwavering confidence in their dogma.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juhBVAnLkHk

Smile


No.  That isn't even remotely what I said.

I'll let you continue this conversation with yourself.

Joni Ernst's family took in $460,000 in farm subsidies. - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1v07z2UCJopCnwRh9yPe-Sm3qbdHuctWTdv49--zpKtuC552PgA

Sure it is.

You keep saying that there's 100% scientific consensus and Seaoat keeps saying the 'science' is settled' when there's no absolute proof and the predictions made are completely incorrect.

Sounds like a faith based dogma with zombie followers to me.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_88L-CU7PD4

Very Happy

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Damaged Eagle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
KarlRove wrote:by polecat Today at 12:12 pm
So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?
----
Wow how illiterate in US History are you exactly ?


Ho...ly...shit...



Don't you mean 'Waming' Shit?




After all one must follow ones fanatical faith unwaveringly.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tdu4uKSZ3M

Smile


There is nothing "fanatical" or faith based in acknowledging the unanimous global scientific consensus on climate change.  

Not that this has absolutely anything to do with this thread.

Is that why they don't throw out the theory after the predicted model fails the test.

Yep! That's really sound science ya' got there bubba.

I may not know all that much but...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2HRrjpiM7Y

Very Happy


This really isn't that complicated.  There is a field of scientific study that focuses on the earth's climate.  There is a 100% consensus among respected organizations within that field with regard to climate change and man's part in it.  

Note that I'm not talking about any specific predictive model here.  I am instead talking about the broad scientific consensus on climate change.  That is, "Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities."

I will repeat a line that republican senators like to use lately, "I'm no scientist".  As a result, I'll defer - again - to the unanimous global consensus that exists among organizations that study this field.  This is the exact opposite of "fanatical" or "faith based" behavior.  I am deferring to the unanimous consensus among the scientific community, as opposed to right-wing american politicians and AM radio hosts.

So what you're saying is that the 'global warming' scientists and the people that follow them are fanatical in their faith even though no predicted model has meet the gestalt of proof they require for their unwavering confidence in their dogma.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juhBVAnLkHk

Smile


No.  That isn't even remotely what I said.

I'll let you continue this conversation with yourself.

Joni Ernst's family took in $460,000 in farm subsidies. - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1v07z2UCJopCnwRh9yPe-Sm3qbdHuctWTdv49--zpKtuC552PgA

Sure it is.

You keep saying that there's 100% scientific consensus and Seaoat keeps saying the 'science' is settled' when there's no absolute proof and the predictions made are completely incorrect.

Sounds like a faith based dogma with zombie followers to me.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_88L-CU7PD4

Very Happy



Question for D. Eagle -- I'm interested in hearing your reasoning on why 2014 was the warmest year in decades, and why the mean temperature is on a steady acceleration upward, measured for say, thirty years?
And I don't give rat's ass for what title is used to describe that warming.
I'm all ears ...

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:Question for D. Eagle -- I'm interested in hearing your reasoning on why 2014 was the warmest year in decades, and why the mean temperature is on a steady acceleration upward, measured for say, thirty years?
And I don't give rat's ass for what title is used to describe that warming.
I'm all ears ...

Joni Ernst's family took in $460,000 in farm subsidies. - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-Fss4bpvg27BRrvhwiOacT1anXxawQ1Ph-anNf1zT3d93fUyg

My grandfather used to say the climate cycles about every 25-30 years or about a generation.

After taking some astronomy courses at a prominent university known for science here in Iowa I learned that the sun rings like a bell growing hotter and cooler on a regular basis.

Of course true scientists like you and Boards who have the science settled and a 100% consensus are truly knowledgeable about such things because of your faith, even though you have no absolute proof because all your prophets of the 100% consensus theo... theological models failed to meet expectations.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkylgZFT_CM

Smile



Last edited by Damaged Eagle on 1/25/2015, 7:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

2seaoat



Farm subsidies are just one more subsidy for the rich. A friend owns four hundred acres of prime grade A soils worth four million.......paid for because they inherited the farm. They sell most of their crop to an ethanol plant in Rochelle Illinois. They produce a little under 200 bushels an acre. Eighty thousand bushels at five bucks a bushel gives them 400k gross and about 300k net after lease payments on equipment, fertilizer, and fuel. Now when corn was over six bucks they were making 380K a year, and each year......they get about 40K subsidy from the US government.

The farm lobby can make or break any candidate who runs in the Iowa primary. President Obama was a strong proponent of Ethanol, and had the Illinois farmers as strong supporters in the Iowa primary. We need somebody to run for President who will end the subsidies.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Joni Ernst's family took in $460,000 in farm subsidies.

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum