• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupply

Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

"Virtually all non-tropical crops are grown in the Central Valley, which is the primary source for a number of food products throughout the United States, including tomatoes, almonds,[16][17] grapes, cotton, apricots, and asparagus."

And you again deliberately ignore what I wrote.

None of those are high calorie by weight. None of those are easily and in large quantities turned into high fructose corn syrup. None of those are used in noticeable quantities in feed lots.

Your argument that the central valley which by and large doesn't produce high calorie items or items that go into meat production is more of a breadbasket then the grain belt is insane.

You argued that vegetables which do not even have dominant market share are more of a breadbasket then the corn regions which have tentacles into virtually every single food product we eat?

You really think that one little valley which has high dollar value low calorie is more of a breadbasket then the massive corn producing regions?

Since you seem to think that the central valley is more important, tell me, how long do you think we'd last on the crops grown in the central valley vs the massive corn grown in the grain belt and its association with feed lots and high fructose corn syrup?

lol you don't need a Constitutional amendment to turn the water back on. All you need is a simple piece of legislation.

Let's see. The court ruled against on the basis of the Constitution. Making a law that is not constitutional serves what purpose?

Do you even know what the general welfare clause is? Do you know what the endangered species act is? Do you not know that legislation can be amendended through further legislation and that you don't need a court ruling to amend the Endangered Species Act?

Care to cite the specifics of the text that would have done that?
 
Last edited:
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

What ever's clever the fact of the matter is that 8% of this countries agricultural output is produced in the central valley.

Are you deliberately being ridiculous?

The stupid argument you are giving is that actual calories produced/tons is not important in determining breadbaskets. Your argument now is that the black sea caviar regions are more of a breadbasket then Ukraine's cereal crop regions.

Tell me, how many people can you feed on caviar vs cereal crops? :rofl

Do you not understand the difference between dollar value and tonnage?
 
Last edited:
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

Well, prove it is primarily about the fish then. The article doesn't count because it doesn't source the propositions, arguments, or reasoning behind the legislation. It is simply presupposing its existence, probably because the well-being of fish was probably mentioned as a reason against its passage by someone at some point. Worth noting, if fish are in danger of dying, water must be pretty scarce already.

Also, the government might have a responsibility, but it also has a responsible to its tax payers that their money is put into sound investments. The government can only do what it can do.

Thanks to that report from Sean Hannity, I was able to look it up for you.

Here is the legal decision from the environmental law firm that took this to court:

On May 29, 2009, in the United States Eastern District Court case of San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, et al v. Salazar (Case No. 1:09-CV-00407), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) was enjoined from restricting pumping operations in the Delta without justification and an explanation of why alternative, less severe restrictions would not adequately protect the delta smelt. The Court found that Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District (collectively “Westlands”) were reasonably likely to succeed on their claim that the Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in failing to conduct environmental review before establishing pumping restrictions for the protection of delta smelt.

That good enough for you?

.
 
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

Thanks to that report from Sean Hannity, I was able to look it up for you.

Here is the legal decision from the environmental law firm that took this to court:

On May 29, 2009, in the United States Eastern District Court case of San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, et al v. Salazar (Case No. 1:09-CV-00407), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) was enjoined from restricting pumping operations in the Delta without justification and an explanation of why alternative, less severe restrictions would not adequately protect the delta smelt. The Court found that Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District (collectively “Westlands”) were reasonably likely to succeed on their claim that the Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in failing to conduct environmental review before establishing pumping restrictions for the protection of delta smelt.

That good enough for you?

.

I see where that was brought to a district court. Care to source where congress voted on it, including text that shows that it was in fact about fish?
 
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

Here's another one for you:

Ruling to protect delta smelt may force water rationing in Bay Area

EXCERPT

The ruling, made Friday evening by U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger, was an attempt to help the delta smelt, a tiny fish once plentiful but now facing extinction. Environmentalists insist the huge Tracy-area pumps used by the State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project suck up smelt, killing huge numbers of them. Those water systems redistribute delta water to parts of the Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.

"This is the most drastic cut ever to California water supplies," said Tim Quinn, the executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, a lobbying group that represents more than 400 agencies that deliver 90 percent of the state's water. "It is the most significant decision ever made in the implementation of either the state or federal Endangered Species Act. It's the biggest impact anywhere, nationwide."

Water agency representatives said cropland is likely to go fallow, and cities in the Tri-Valley, Santa Clara County, Los Angeles and elsewhere could have to institute mandatory rationing programs in order to deal with the cuts in water.
 
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

Thanks to that report from Sean Hannity, I was able to look it up for you.

Here is the legal decision from the environmental law firm that took this to court:

On May 29, 2009, in the United States Eastern District Court case of San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, et al v. Salazar (Case No. 1:09-CV-00407), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) was enjoined from restricting pumping operations in the Delta without justification and an explanation of why alternative, less severe restrictions would not adequately protect the delta smelt. The Court found that Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District (collectively “Westlands”) were reasonably likely to succeed on their claim that the Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in failing to conduct environmental review before establishing pumping restrictions for the protection of delta smelt.

That good enough for you?

.

No, because there are multiple dimensions to everything, and issues acquire more dimensions as more parties get involved. To begin with, maybe factions concerned about the economics of the matter backed the environmental agency because environmental laws provided an easier route to solving the problem than engaging with the issue directly in the state congress. Maybe the federal Congress was confronted with the issue, re-assessed the entire situation, and decided economic viability was another good reason why the water should be cut -- certainly, if anybody who was looking to shut down the water could make that point, they would argue it.

Then again, maybe they couldn't legislate favorably toward the farmers without undoing precedent and law which protects all environments, nationally, and by association all nature-interested persons everywhere and consumers, even in those situations where the capital interest is outweighed by public investment in the region (aka, state parks and the communal pride, general enjoyment, and tourist/visitor revenue derived therein).

It could have very well been all these things and more. Politics attracts many persons with different agendas who are policy-making at cross-purposes but by the same means.

As a rule, courts are narrow in their focus, whereas the legislative authorities are holistic and far encompassing in their vision, if disjointed and at odds in their intentions. That the court took this view of the matter is only because it was in the form of an environmental issue that the case reached them. They don't have the authority to rule beyond that jurisdiction; they rule on what they get and only within that very small parameter. Legislative assemblies are not so restricted and can debate every contentious point about an issue, and when it comes to western state water laws, there are plenty of contentious points.
 
Last edited:
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

I see where that was brought to a district court. Care to source where congress voted on it, including text that shows that it was in fact about fish?

How's this for starters... This is from the website of Congressman Devin Nunes:

In my ongoing effort to convince Congressional Democrats that Californians need relief from a government imposed dust-bowl, I have been offering amendments to a number of spending bills. These amendments have been straightforward, despite the efforts of Democratic leaders to generate controversy. If enacted, my amendments would prevent federal authorities from implementing environmental decisions that deprive Californians access to essential water supplies.

In addition to the efforts I have undertaken related to federal spending bills, I have introduced separate legislation – HR 3105. The bill is only two pages. It is entitled the “Turn on the Pumps Act” – and that is exactly what it would do.

In addition, I have worked to gain Senate support for legislation. On September 22, 2009, Senator Jim DeMint (South Carolina) proposed an amendment to the Department of Interior spending bill that would have given Californians one year of reliable water supplies. It was defeated by California's Senators and a largely party line vote (see video). You can also listen to Senator DeMint and I explain our effort on KMJ's Ray Appleton Program by clicking here.

Heres the bill he introduced.

Here's the video of the vote taken last week, that defeated the amendment to give them water for one year:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sYcp5yqeTU"]YouTube - Senators Feinstein and Boxer kill California water amendment[/ame]


Satisfied yet?

I think this is the congressional vote a few months ago:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKPG6J6MPP8"]YouTube - Turn on the Pumps? Democrats say NO![/ame]
 
Last edited:
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

OK... Can we now put to rest the following:

1. The reason for no water, is to save the Delta Smelt
2. Environmentalist took this to court and won.
3. More than one piece of legislation was written and introduced to turn the water back on.
4. The introduction last week, of an amendment to turn the water on for a year, was voted down by the senate on party lines, with the democrats voting not to include it.

Based on what I have posted, can we all agree on those four facts?

If not, than you live on another planet, because I have proven all 4 of them conclusively.

.
 
Last edited:
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

I'm not sure I want to get involved in this "debate" but I'll bite for a moment or two:

stipulating as true all the facts you state, the conclusion offered in the article that started this thread does not follow. The original post said:

The democrats have created food lines in this country and they voted for a mino over American farmers in the heart of Americas bread basket this would be funny if it wasn't so god damn sick. This is akin to what Stalin did to the Ukrainians and the Kulaks. It's time for a mother ****ing revolution watch your ****ing backs.

The vituperousness aside, I believe there are three primary claims:

1) The democrats have created food lines in this country

2) The democrats voted for a minnow (not sure what a "mino" is) over American farmers

3) This is akin to what Stalin did to the Ukrainians and the Kulaks.

The article cited makes this central claim:

If you don’t know the story, here’s the deal. The Obama regime is using the excuse of a fish, a two inch bait fish, the Delta Smelt, which they claim is an “endangered species” to shut down all of the water to the San Joaquin Valley. They have created a modern day dust bowl out of some of the most beautiful farm land on earth. Some 400,000 acres have been destroyed with one million total acres in jeopardy.

Out of this, we can get a couple more claims:

1) The Obama regime is using the excuse of a fish, a two inch bait fish, the Delta Smelt, which they claims is an endangered species to shut down all of the water to the San Joaquin Valley.

2) [The Obama Regime] has created a modern day dust bowl out of some of the most beautiful farm land on earth.

3) Some 400,000 acres have been destroyed with one million total acres in jeopardy.

None of these claims are supported by or follow from the propositions stipulated. The Obama regime did not use the fish as an excuse to shut down all water to the San Joaquin Valley; there is still water available in the San Joaquin Valley. 400,000 acres have not been "destroyed," whatever that means. There is no indication why senate Democrats voted as they did; it is supposition to assume it was a case of the democrats putting a bait fish over the American farmers. The Senate Democrats have not been shown to have created bread lines in this country. Nor have they been shown to have created a modern day dustbowl. And until something like 30 million people starve to death as a result of something the senate Democrats actually did do, they won't be getting anywhere near Stalin territory.

Getting down to one of two central issues: even if all of that were true, I'm not sure it isn't the correct decision. There is a simple principle involved here: eventually, at some unknown point, if we continue to destroy species, we will reach a tipping point and destroy ourselves as well. We can reason easily enough that if we destroyed all species except our own, we'd end up destroying ourselves. We could then add species back to the survivor list and still realize that at some point prior to having destroyed all species but our own, we'd still be unable to survive. If, for instance, we killed everything but us and horses, we'd still be doomed since horses can't eat us or each other.

We don't know the point at which the inflection will occur, but we know that extinction events have happened in the past, we know they started usually by a fairly small event causing an inflection point, and we know we don't want to face such a thing. We can also reason with some certainty that we're getting dangerously close right now. We have already destroyed one third of the ecosphere.

Going forward stupidly ignoring this point brings us all (all 6.9 billion of us) into peril.
 
Does Hannity'*ever* do any research?

Y'know, all this fuming and freaking out is quite humorous, considering that the temporary pumping restrictions that were required under the Endangered Species Act ended on June 30th.

The pumps are on, and have been for several months. :doh

But don't let the facts stop your funny little faux tantrums. Read 'em and weep, kids.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REALITY CHECK: CALIFORNIA’S WATER CRISIS

RHETORIC: “TURN ON THE PUMPS”

Q. Some people are blaming the Obama Administration’s efforts to conserve salmon populations and the delta smelt, a threatened fish, for water shortages in the Central Valley. They are asking the federal government to turn on water pumps that deliver water through the Bay Delta to Central Valley users, but which - to protect the Bay Delta and fish populations - were recently subject to temporary pumping restrictions. Why won’t the Obama Administration turn the pumps on?

A. The pumps are on. The temporary pumping restrictions that were required under the Endangered Species Act ended on June 30th. They accounted for approximately one-quarter of 2009 water delivery shortages to farms and water users; the other three-quarters of this year’s delivery shortage
were the result of a lack of run-off.

Updated: September 17, 2009
To help alleviate water shortages caused by the lack of precipitation and pumping restrictions, the federal government’s Bureau of Reclamation has helped move more than 600,000 acre feet of water to communities in most need, and is taking steps to prepare for a potential fourth year of drought.

In addition, the Obama Administration is investing over $400 million (click here, here, and here [follow header link to find the active links]) through the President’s economic recovery plan to help modernize California’s water infrastructure, including over $40 million through the Bureau of Reclamation in emergency assistance to help water-short Central Valley farmers through the construction of temporary pipelines and pumps, new water wells, well-enhancement projects, and a groundwater monitoring effort.

RHETORIC: “REGULATORY DROUGHT”
Q: Is it true, as some people claim, that water shortages and high unemployment rates in California’s Central Valley are the result of a man-made, “regulatory” drought, as opposed to natural conditions?

A. Not true. California’s water crisis is even more troubling than critics contend. The state is in its third year of a severe drought, caused by below average precipitation and significantly lower run-off into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta. As a result, one-third less water is available to the 25
million Californians who depend on the Bay Delta for their drinking water and for the farms in the Central Valley that produce half of the nation’s fruits and vegetables. Moreover, California’s Bay Delta is in a state of full environmental collapse and the state’s water infrastructure, built fifty years ago for a population half as large, can’t handle the stress of the current crisis.

• For information from about historic precipitation levels and the drought’s causes, from the Bureau of Reclamation, click here, and from the California Department of Water Resources click here.

• To read about the challenges facing California’s outdated water infrastructure and California’s Bay Delta, click here.

• To read a Sacramento Bee editorial about the California water crisis, click here.

[follow header link above to find the active links]

Poor Pinhead Hannity and his minnow-brained minions. Got it wrong AGAIN! :rofl
 
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

OK... Can we now put to rest the following:

1. The reason for no water, is to save the Delta Smelt

The reason for no water is the third consecutive year of drought. The April snow pack report used to determine water allocations for the year ahead was 66% of normal. The water allocation for the summer was set based on snow pack totals at 30% of requested amounts.

Those with priority (oldest) water claims get 100%, those lower on the totem pole get less than even their 30%.. basically zero.

these are all issues making for a situation of no water that are completely independent of the Delta smelt.

I still have not been able to find a direct quote (several paraphrases), but Lester Snow (you know the head water honcho there) testified that if the Delta pumping were allowed water allocations would be at 35% instead of 30%.

people would still be without water, and the valley would still be a dustbowl due to allocation methods which essentially means that whoever has the oldest water contracts get full water privileges, and those with later contracts are left out to dry hoping to buy excess water from the primary right holders.

2. Environmentalist took this to court and won.

Obviously they had a solid case.

my guess was it was as a result of the 1973 endangered species act.. obviously not a result of the democrats in congress now (with the exception of Bryd and a cpl others perhaps), and obviously not Obama's doing, so irrelevant, this has not been up for debate.

3. More than one piece of legislation was written and introduced to turn the water back on.

yeah the one the Ca senator introduced is ridiculous, it basically gives Ca immunity from the Endangered Species act if exports could be harmed in any way shape or form as a result of the Act.

I am sure the others were ridiculous as well. We are arguing about the details of a painting in a pitch black room here however.

This is the meat of the argument here.. what were the factors for this being voted against.. I am sure it was not to deliberate starve millions of people and force a valley into desolation.

4. The introduction last week, of an amendment to turn the water on for a year, was voted down by the senate on party lines, with the democrats voting not to include it.

That vote contained 4 R votes, since 10% of the republicans voted against as well, this is obviously not a vote on party lines.

Based on what I have posted, can we all agree on those four facts?

Nope just 2 were true statements.

And no one was arguing against either of those statements. So they are rather irrelevant.

If not, than you live on another planet, because I have proven all 4 of them conclusively.

Well let us know if you plan on visiting Earth anytime soon, because you have done no such thing.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does Hannity'*ever* do any research?

Y'know, all this fuming and freaking out is quite humorous, considering that the temporary pumping restrictions that were required under the Endangered Species Act ended on June 30th.

The pumps are on, and have been for several months. :doh

But don't let the facts stop your funny little faux tantrums. Read 'em and weep, kids.



Poor Pinhead Hannity and his minnow-brained minions. Got it wrong AGAIN! :rofl

tell it to the farmers
 
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

On a caloric basis, the central valley is completely irrelevant

i find your wonkishness concerning the livelihoods of real people stunning

with all due respect
 
Re: Does Hannity'*ever* do any research?

tell it to the farmers

The farmers (and the mouthbreathers who hang on Hannity's every word) can whine and wail and point fingers all they like - the drought wasn't created by anybody and can't be ended by anybody.

Obama and the minnows are not the problem here.

If you wish to register your protest with the proper authorities, please take your puling complaints to Mother Nature and see what she thinks of your partisan hysterics. Like her, we rational humans aren't interested in right-wing asshattery.

:roll:
 
Re: Does Hannity'*ever* do any research?

The farmers (and the mouthbreathers who hang on Hannity's every word) can whine and wail and point fingers all they like - the drought wasn't created by anybody and can't be ended by anybody.

Obama and the minnows are not the problem here.

It's not Obama, but it is a long history of government ineptitude. The drought was caused by government refusing to raise the price of water even as supplies dwindled. By not acting like a private company would, they set into motion this drought. If the government would have raised prices, then demand would have fallen and California would not be in drought condition.
 
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

The farmers (and the mouthbreathers who hang on Hannity's every word) can whine and wail and point fingers all they like - the drought wasn't created by anybody and can't be ended by anybody.

Obama and the minnows are not the problem here.

If you wish to register your protest with the proper authorities, please take your puling complaints to Mother Nature and see what she thinks of your partisan hysterics. Like her, we rational humans aren't interested in right-wing asshattery.

:roll:

good for you

but just try to win an election on THAT platform
 
Re: Does Hannity'*ever* do any research?

It's not Obama, but it is a long history of government ineptitude. The drought was caused by government refusing to raise the price of water even as supplies dwindled. By not acting like a private company would, they set into motion this drought. If the government would have raised prices, then demand would have fallen and California would not be in drought condition.

I hate to break it to you, but droughts are directely related to weather conditions; specifically, lack of precipitation. Politics, prices, and/or demand have absolutely nothing to do with the creation/cessation of droughts.

Main Entry: drought
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English drūgath, from drūgian to dry up; akin to Old English drȳge dry — more at dry
Date: before 12th century

1 : a period of dryness especially when prolonged; specifically : one that causes extensive damage to crops or prevents their successful growth

2 : a prolonged or chronic shortage or lack of something expected or desired
 
Re: Does Hannity'*ever* do any research?

I hate to break it to you, but droughts are directely related to weather conditions; specifically, lack of precipitation. Politics, prices, and/or demand have absolutely nothing to do with the creation/cessation of droughts.

But there's just one problem. A lack of precipitation is to be expected around here. Water reserves are falling, and we are running out of water. The government STILL will not raise prices. Doesn't that seem just a little crazy to you?
 
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

The democrats have created food lines in this country and they voted for a mino over American farmers in the heart of Americas bread basket this would be funny if it wasn't so god damn sick. This is akin to what Stalin did to the Ukrainians and the Kulaks. It's time for a mother ****ing revolution watch your ****ing backs.

This country's agricultural sector has been screwed ever since the government decided it was a good idea to fix prices by buying and storing grain. Then, they got even more brilliant by paying farmers not to produce.

Economic genius. [/s]

:D
 
Re: Does Hannity'*ever* do any research?

But there's just one problem. A lack of precipitation is to be expected around here. Water reserves are falling, and we are running out of water. The government STILL will not raise prices. Doesn't that seem just a little crazy to you?

What's crazy is people freaking out that they can't get blood out of a rock (i.e., reliable water out of a desert). You've already said it yourself: The water's not there. It never has been.

People need to accept that arid land is simply not a good place to set up a farming operation, and stop blaming the government for natural phenomenon that is completely beyond its control.

I was a resident of California for 35 years. The water issue was always there, and it always will be. SoCal has been trying to buy its way out of its lack of water since day one (see Chinatown). With our global climate change, SoCal can no longer expect to buy its water from other places that need it just as much.

Time for CA farmers to consider these facts and act accordingly. Blaming Obama and/or an endangered species are non-issues compared to the big truth: The Water Has Run Out.
 
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

Wow, ridiculously partisan source and article. Half the article is just comparing the current administration to Communism and Marxism. There may be a little true content, but it's so ridiculously drowned in partisan hackery that one can't even concentrate on the what the article is supposed to be about.


I'm sayin' !!!

Is there an actual news article to read? I have no idea what this blog is even talking about.
 
Re: Does Hannity'*ever* do any research?

I'm not blaming Obama or endangered species. I'm blaming the government which is trying to subsidize the cost of living in this area now to the detriment of those living here. Price increases should have happened gradually over many years. We are blinded to how expensive it is to get water over here. Imagine, if water actually was set at market prices, we might actually have more desalination plants.
 
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

president obama, senator difi, turn the water back on, please

the central valley is dying
 
Re: Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously To Destroy American Farmers, America’s Foodsupp

president obama, senator difi, turn the water back on, please

the central valley is dying

The water WAS turned back on, on June 30. Pay attention. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom