Liberal Forum

righteous » 10 Dec 2024, 9:55 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Dec 2024, 9:55 pm

SKANSY BOY!!!   
YOU FAILED TO MENTION THAT CHINA PRODUCES 60 PERCENT OF THE WORLDS RARE ELEMENTS AND PROCESSES 85 PERCENT OF THEM.
AMERICA STILL CAN'T FIND THE MEANS TO PRODUCE THEM ENVIRONMENTALLY. WE ARE DECADES BEHIND IN TECHNOLOGY. THE RESULT OF WEAKNESSES LIKE ACCEPTING DEI PLATFORMS AND *** SOCIETY. ALL PART OF THE CONTROL OF THE NWO GLOBALISTS MANIFESTO

We have vast deserts wide open places out West.

Its also a "National" Security issue but activist will scream & file countless lawsuits too.

So we just buy them from China
 

Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2024, 10:02 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Dec 2024, 10:02 pm

Mining requires a **** ton of water. So does ranching.

Yes but in vast open spaces enough scrub brush even cattle can eat endlessly.

Now wait up until afew years ago the tsunami was a massive drought and half dried up and Wild Fires started allover the West blew the smoke signals east too ya could smell it.

Okay fine we like hamburgers , steak &tacos too fine I agree.

Cattle weight light a ton or so require massive quantities of food & water.

The "Range" out West used be okay place 4 it too..

But I understand things have "Changed" too

Skans » 10 Dec 2024, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Dec 2024, 8:28 pm

Trump will have the power to open these lands up to mining and eliminate the regulations that are hamstringing our mining companies.  All he has to do is enact a modest tariff - with Congress (so it is more permanent), and then command the Department of the Interior to release the reins.

Are you enough of a goldfish that you are unaware you globalist neocons are responsible for chyna's ascendancy? 

I remember being called a communist for suggesting tariffs and protectionism. And now the same people who called me a communist are suddenly saying the same things I was saying - all because Trump said them. 

Maybe exporting all of our jobs to chyna was not such a good idea - but you used to defend it. You, and everyone with your mindset. I was on the Trump train before he ever ran in 2016 - which is why youse used to call me a communist. 

You are still a neocon, still a big government boy, still want to be in everyone's business but your own. You just add tariffs to the mix and think you're something new. You're not. You're a neocon - which is absolutely not a conservative. 
 

Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2024, 10:22 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Dec 2024, 10:22 pm

Are you enough of a goldfish that you are unaware you globalist neocons are responsible for chyna's ascendancy? 

I remember being called a communist for suggesting tariffs and protectionism. And now the same people who called me a communist are suddenly saying the same things I was saying - all because Trump said them. 

Maybe exporting all of our jobs to chyna was not such a good idea - but you used to defend it. You, and everyone with your mindset. I was on the Trump train before he ever ran in 2016 - which is why youse used to call me a communist. 

You are still a neocon, still a big government boy, still want to be in everyone's business but your own. You just add tariffs to the mix and think you're something new. You're not. You're a neocon - which is absolutely not a conservative.

“You’re a neocon, not a conservative”

They’re both sh*t though   

Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2024, 10:22 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Dec 2024, 10:22 pm

Are you enough of a goldfish that you are unaware you globalist neocons are responsible for chyna's ascendancy? 

I remember being called a communist for suggesting tariffs and protectionism. And now the same people who called me a communist are suddenly saying the same things I was saying - all because Trump said them. 

Maybe exporting all of our jobs to chyna was not such a good idea - but you used to defend it. You, and everyone with your mindset. I was on the Trump train before he ever ran in 2016 - which is why youse used to call me a communist. 

You are still a neocon, still a big government boy, still want to be in everyone's business but your own. You just add tariffs to the mix and think you're something new. You're not. You're a neocon - which is absolutely not a conservative. 
 

Socialism is getting everyone to agree to disagree about life being self evident time personally adapting in space as an ever changing form limited to their unique time alive now.

Communism is group think people never accepting their true position occupying time daily since birth every generation gap since dawn of civilization educating philosophies and psychologies are the best way to keep people ignoring life as displaced daily after birth never counting conceptions to birth as part of the population today.

Never count your chickens/children until they hatch/born to eternally separated so far.

Skans » 10 Dec 2024, 8:55 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Dec 2024, 8:55 pm

It's not going.  I haven't had time to do anything with that.  Also, I found the exact part I was going to replicate on gunbroker for a reasonable price, bought it and that sort of took the wind out of my sails. I still plan on setting up a lathe and milling machine in my workshed someday.  Oh, and I did buy a small metal bender - just haven't had time to do crap with it.

That's a bummer..."some day"...just remember, it's dependent on the number of shopping days...    

had to put mine on hold as well...spent 5 months rebuilding a 36 x48 pole barn...got back in the shop late October...
 

Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2024, 10:22 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Dec 2024, 10:22 pm

Are you enough of a goldfish that you are unaware you globalist neocons are responsible for chyna's ascendancy? 

I remember being called a communist for suggesting tariffs and protectionism. And now the same people who called me a communist are suddenly saying the same things I was saying - all because Trump said them. 

Maybe exporting all of our jobs to chyna was not such a good idea - but you used to defend it. You, and everyone with your mindset. I was on the Trump train before he ever ran in 2016 - which is why youse used to call me a communist. 

You are still a neocon, still a big government boy, still want to be in everyone's business but your own. You just add tariffs to the mix and think you're something new. You're not. You're a neocon - which is absolutely not a conservative.

Skanny is an adamant SMALL GOVT guy....

...that wants the US to run the world.  

These these loons more creepy or simply just dumbasses.  
 

Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2024, 10:02 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Dec 2024, 10:02 pm

Mining requires a **** ton of water. So does ranching.

yes to both. The selling point to this operation was that would not treat/process the lithium in any way. In short, pull it out of the ground and send it to the factory. But as you know, when you dig down you will hit water eventually. The ranchers rely on the groundwater due to lack of surface water. 

on a side note, I have always found it strange/inefficient that we have so much cattle production in NV and UT when those two states are so dry and have booming populations. If I was a cattle rancher,  I would want to live/operate in a place where water was not so precious and did not have the temperature extremes of NV. 

impartialobserver » 11 Dec 2024, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2024, 1:13 pm

yes to both. The selling point to this operation was that would not treat/process the lithium in any way. In short, pull it out of the ground and send it to the factory. But as you know, when you dig down you will hit water eventually. The ranchers rely on the groundwater due to lack of surface water. 

on a side note, I have always found it strange/inefficient that we have so much cattle production in NV and UT when those two states are so dry and have booming populations. If I was a cattle rancher,  I would want to live/operate in a place where water was not so precious and did not have the temperature extremes of NV.

Land is cheap.  Also, I believe they can essentially have their cattle graze on limitless Federal lands for dirt-cheap permits and fees.  Try doing that on land in Mississippi where there isn't that much Federal land (doesn't get much cheaper than Mississippi).  There is no "free land".  Ranchers will need to pay 5K an acre to own their own, cheap, remote land, or lease it from another land owner.
 
 
 

Skans » 11 Dec 2024, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2024, 1:34 pm

Land is cheap.  Also, I believe they can essentially have their cattle graze on limitless Federal lands for dirt-cheap permits and fees.  Try doing that on land in Mississippi where there isn't that much Federal land (doesn't get much cheaper than Mississippi).  There is no "free land".  Ranchers will need to pay 5K an acre to own their own, cheap, remote land, or lease it from another land owner.

Yes, land in NV is cheap if you are not near Reno or Las Vegas. However, in low precipitation years they have to sell their cattle. They keep having to drill deeper and deeper for their wells (for their homes). On another note.. you ever want to get confused look at the laws and arrangements concerning water rights out West. Lots of very bizarre and slightly confounding items. 

impartialobserver » 11 Dec 2024, 1:42 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2024, 1:42 pm

Yes, land in NV is cheap if you are not near Reno or Las Vegas. However, in low precipitation years they have to sell their cattle. They keep having to drill deeper and deeper for their wells (for their homes). On another note.. you ever want to get confused look at the laws and arrangements concerning water rights out West. Lots of very bizarre and slightly confounding items.

I have looked into your water rights - well, Montana's water rights. Basically, you can buy the land, but you also have to separately own the water rights. Without water rights, you really have nothing. I understand the "why", but its vastly different than anything back East. I think in some states you are even prohibited from collecting rain-runoff in a rain barrel!  That's some crazy ****!

 

Skans » 11 Dec 2024, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2024, 1:47 pm

I have looked into your water rights - well, Montana's water rights. Basically, you can buy the land, but you also have to separately own the water rights. Without water rights, you really have nothing. I understand the "why", but its vastly different than anything back East. I think in some states you are even prohibited from collecting rain-runoff in a rain barrel!  That's some crazy ****!

CA needs to undergo a massive reckoning when it comes to water rights. They have a lot of folks who have water rights that are based on "back of the envelope" contracts. These date from the early 1900's and at that time, there was such abundance of water that no one cared. The population was nowhere near what it is today there. These very informal contracts (and frequently not legally binding) need to be challenged. This is not to say that the liberal cities need the water but it is simply inefficient to have farmer X be entitled to 100 units (just for simple math) when it is very clear that they only need 40. 

impartialobserver » 11 Dec 2024, 1:53 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2024, 1:53 pm

CA needs to undergo a massive reckoning when it comes to water rights. They have a lot of folks who have water rights that are based on "back of the envelope" contracts. These date from the early 1900's and at that time, there was such abundance of water that no one cared. The population was nowhere near what it is today there. These very informal contracts (and frequently not legally binding) need to be challenged. This is not to say that the liberal cities need the water but it is simply inefficient to have farmer X be entitled to 100 units (just for simple math) when it is very clear that they only need 40.

I just don't get it, I really don't.  Why even try to raise cattle in a desert when there's nothing but lush, wet cattle land in 80% of Florida, 95% of Mississippi, most of South Georgia and South Alabama, Middle and Northern Louisiana, Middle North Carolina and most of South Carolina? Heck, there's so much land in the East that could be used for raising cattle - and most of those crazy Californians don't even eat meat!!

Beef is expensive.  Pork is cheap.  Besides, anyone can hunt pigs any day of the week without a hunting license - they are a pest-animal. 
 

Skans » 11 Dec 2024, 2:12 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2024, 2:12 pm

I just don't get it, I really don't.  Why even try to raise cattle in a desert when there's nothing but lush, wet cattle land in 80% of Florida, 95% of Mississippi, most of South Georgia and South Alabama, Middle and Northern Louisiana, Middle North Carolina and most of South Carolina? Heck, there's so much land in the East that could be used for raising cattle - and most of those crazy Californians don't even eat meat!!

Beef is expensive.  Pork is cheap.  Besides, anyone can hunt pigs any day of the week without a hunting license - they are a pest-animal.

That is my thought as well. I feel that there are better ways to use the precious water than cattle out west. More specifically, in Southern CA, NV, UT, AZ, NM, and Southern Idaho. Use the water that was once going to cattle and instead grow crops in the Central Valley (or elsewhere) that we typically import during the winter; berries, citrus fruits, non-root vegetables, and such. Nothing wrong with being more self sufficient. 

impartialobserver » 11 Dec 2024, 2:22 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2024, 2:22 pm

That is my thought as well. I feel that there are better ways to use the precious water than cattle out west. More specifically, in Southern CA, NV, UT, AZ, NM, and Southern Idaho. Use the water that was once going to cattle and instead grow crops in the Central Valley (or elsewhere) that we typically import during the winter; berries, citrus fruits, non-root vegetables, and such. Nothing wrong with being more self sufficient.

Well, I do think the ranchers have more right to the water than do any one of the illegal aliens.  Get rid of the illegals, then lets see what pressures there are on water resources.
 

Skans » 11 Dec 2024, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2024, 2:36 pm

Well, I do think the ranchers have more right to the water than do any one of the illegal aliens.  Get rid of the illegals, then lets see what pressures there are on water resources.

Well having the crops grown in the US versus importing them would probably entail some illegals being hired and therefore using the water for their daily life. I still find that more pallatable than importing it. It would help if the farmers would not deliberately seek them out. If you came up to them in person.. they would insist that they do not. But then there is this pattern and each year.. it plays out exactly the same. The pattern tells me a lot

Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2024, 10:22 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Dec 2024, 10:22 pm

Are you enough of a goldfish that you are unaware you globalist neocons are responsible for chyna's ascendancy? 

I remember being called a communist for suggesting tariffs and protectionism. And now the same people who called me a communist are suddenly saying the same things I was saying - all because Trump said them. 

Maybe exporting all of our jobs to chyna was not such a good idea - but you used to defend it. You, and everyone with your mindset. I was on the Trump train before he ever ran in 2016 - which is why youse used to call me a communist. 

You are still a neocon, still a big government boy, still want to be in everyone's business but your own. You just add tariffs to the mix and think you're something new. You're not. You're a neocon - which is absolutely not a conservative.

Ooooo Nooooo, Cannonpointer called me a neocon and a "not" conservative. 

I called you a Communist for other reasons, not because of tariffs.  I really don't remember why I called you a Communist.  Probably because you worship government entitlements, want the expansion of government healthcare and generally want more free stuff from "government". That is you, right?
 

LowIQTrash » 11 Dec 2024, 7:29 am » wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2024, 7:29 am

“You’re a neocon, not a conservative”

They’re both sh*t though 

I do not agree. Nations need conservatives for their survival. 

Neocons threaten a nation's survival.

impartialobserver » 11 Dec 2024, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2024, 1:13 pm

yes to both. The selling point to this operation was that would not treat/process the lithium in any way. In short, pull it out of the ground and send it to the factory. But as you know, when you dig down you will hit water eventually. The ranchers rely on the groundwater due to lack of surface water. 

on a side note, I have always found it strange/inefficient that we have so much cattle production in NV and UT when those two states are so dry and have booming populations. If I was a cattle rancher,  I would want to live/operate in a place where water was not so precious and did not have the temperature extremes of NV.

Cheap land - that's why.

But the lack of water is actually a lack of leadership. Millions of acre feet of nuisance water is fouled in the midwest every year. That water could be piped over the rockies into lake powell in utah - headwaters of the colorado - for a few measly billion. 
 

Skans » 11 Dec 2024, 3:41 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2024, 3:41 pm

Ooooo Nooooo, Cannonpointer called me a neocon and a "not" conservative. 

I called you a Communist for other reasons, not because of tariffs.  I really don't remember why I called you a Communist.  Probably because you worship government entitlements, want the expansion of government healthcare and generally want more free stuff from "government". That is you, right?

That is not me - not in the United States. If I belonged to a heterogeneous nation, you can bet your *** I would be for public higher education and public health care. 

You want the current level of military spending and global military engagement. That is you, right?

I am not and never have been a communist. 
You are and always have been a neocon - not a conservative.