I heard this same story, only Ted was asked to come back because he didn't say anything like "do you know who I am..." I heard that he was embarassed by Jane and said he was sorry.LongTimeCatFan wrote:Only in America FM 100.7 (A local radio station) was doing one of their "Is anyone listening" bits one morning. This first one was, "Ever have a celebrity pull the 'Do you know who I am' routine?" A woman called in and said that a few years back, while visiting her cattle rancher uncle in Billings, MT., they had occasion to go to dinner at a restaurant that does not take reservations. The wait was about 45 minutes. Lots of other rancher types and their spouses were already waiting. In comes Ted Turner and Jane Fonda. They want a table. The hostess says they'll have to wait about 45 minutes. Jane Fonda asks the hostess if she knows who she is. "Yes, but you'll still have to wait 45 minutes." Then Jane says, "Is the manager in?" The manager comes out, "May I help you?" Do you know who I am?" ask both Jane and Ted. "Yes, but these folks have all been waiting already and I can't put you in ahead of them." Then Ted asks to speak to the owner. The owner comes out. Jane again asks, "Do you know who I am?" The owner says, "Yes, I do. Do you know who I am? I am the owner of this restaurant and a Vietnam Veteran. Not only will you not get a table ahead of all of my friends and neighbors here, but you also will not be eating in my restaurant tonight or any other night. Good bye." Only in America, what a great country! This is a true story and the name of the steak house is Sir Scott's Oasis Steakhouse 204 W Main, MANHATTAN, MT 59741 (406) 284-6929
Ted Turner/Stadium discussion
Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat
- Cat-theotherwhitemeat
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3156
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:45 pm
- Location: Billings
- Contact:
My avatar does not now, nor has in the past, depict a person of mentally challenged state. If you have a problem with it, please call the U.S. department of Bite my A$$. MTBuff/Administrator.
- LongTimeCatFan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8625
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Kalispell
LOL Well, some of us just have it better than others.BAC and LTCF........you're obviously not getting any word done.
You're Fired!
My reference was not intended to be a link and it was simply intended to be a reference. The information was compiled from data collected by the USDA.
The electoral college is based on population and equal representation is achieved by having two houses. In the senate, everyone is afforded two senators, but in the house of reps, the amount of reps you get is based on population as well. Montana, only has ONE, and I'm not sure how many CA has, but it is more than 2. This is an unvalid argument.benefit greatly by the electoral college/equal representation in the Senate structure we have in place
Yes that is the theory behind economic advantage, and you are absolutely correct about the necessity of these government programs. If you look at the trend of benefits paid to producers over the past 20 years as a result of the newer farm bill, it would suggest that this is the governments wishes. To put it frankly, the government wishes to "wean" them off of these payments giving them a chance to change the way they operate. Now this brings up another topic though. I'm not sure if you were suggesting it, but I'll say it anyway. Some in the agriculture field feel that the government's sentiment is to outsource agriculture to a foreign company. Well, frankly that was a statement/suggestion made by Al Gore and I believe that is what lost him the "Ag" states in the election. It might take a little time and research, but in history, all great civilizations were agriculturally independant and the first thing they did before their civilization fell was that very same thing. They outsourced their ag products for whatever reason and became dependant upon other nations for their food supply much like we are dependant on other nations for oil. You can live without oil, but you can not live without food or at least I can't anyway. It became the first step in unraveling their control.You also downplayed the frequency of people receiving payments and noted that many of those would go out of business. Does that then suggest that the programs aren't necessary? If they are going to go out of business anyway, is it the responsibility of the federal government to prop up relatively unsuccessful businesses? Shouldn't we let them go under and have somebody who is better at it take over?
A great man once said and I don't rememer who but this is it (I'm not very good at remembering names, just tid-bits of info, some quotes, and facts) "You can take away the streets and sidewalks from a city and they will be rebuilt, but if you take away the farms, you will no longer have cities." I think that is interesting and thought provoking. Think about it and let me know what you think.
I am not saying that supply/demand has no effect on wheat prices. I thought I explained that thoroughly. When people buy more bread at the supermarket, it has such a miniscule effect on the price that it is not noticable. The fluctuations are a result of better or worse crops than projections previously predicted as well as demand for that product in other nations increasing or decreasing due to their economic buying power. The US buying power does not fluctuate as much relatively speaking as some of those little countries in say Africa.So you are saying that supply and demand has absolutely no impact on wheat prices? I call BS on that one. When the price has ranged between $2 and $4 over the last couple of years, what caused that shift in prices? It was supply and demand, just like virtually everything else in a capitalist economy. I know it is true that prices haven't increased over time, but that's again due to supply and demand. As wheat becomes more efficiently grown, supply goes up worldwide. Regardless of that, a favorable shift of the demand curve (resulting from people having more money to buy more wheat products worldwide) will certainly favorably impact wheat prices. It might not be a huge impact, but there is certainly an impact.
If you look at one of my previous posts, I stated the following:Even though the WTO has been a pain in the butt for us, that doesn't mean I think it should go away. I think the goal should be to move towards free trade and not run away from it only when it doesn't benefit us.
If you have any suggestions as to how we can accomplish getting the free trade structure to benefit all equally, I would love to hear them. Until then, the current structure leaves us with a trade deficit worse than before and until changes/agreements are made to open up trade globally and let free trade operate IDEALLY, I am not in favor of it. Right now it seems like we are seriously being taken advantage of because we are "open," but not everyone else is.WTO and NAFTA seem to primarily benefit other countries more than our own thus increasing trade deficits rather than decreasing them. I would like to note that I WOULD be in favor of free trade if both sides benefitted equally, which consequently is not the case.
By the way, you still haven't argued for letting other countries utilze our commodity exchanges.
Name ONE! I am an optimist like you and I want to believe that it has helped american ag, but I can't find any examples.I don't know all of the details of the WTO and agriculture, but I imagine that there has been some good things that have happened for the U.S. as a result and some new markets that have been opened.
I don't even know why you vote. It seems you are terribly misled. LOL By the way, I did some research on this topic politically and I have found no evidence that it was pushed by republicans, but rather the democrats under Bill Clinton pushed to get it passed. Show me where you found your information because what I have found indicates Billy Bob is taking full credit.Retrenching and throwing up new trade barriers seems like the worst idea to me. Of course, if you do want to do that, I fully expect that you will start voting Democrat exclusively.
I put this at the end because it is entirely a separate issue. CRP or Crop Reduction Program was initiated by Roosevelt -- a democrat -- as part of a plan of prevention of the food crisis the nation felt as a result of the "dust bowl." Even he, a democrat, realized the importance of self sufficient agriculture. Now it is not so much used for that purpose as modern agriculturalists have drastically improved their conservation practices. Now it is more of a way to preserve "open landscapes" or prevent them from being subdivided like Colorado or the Bozeman area and again is pushed by democrats. Do I believe that CRP has an important place in American Agriculture today? No, not really. Mostly it creates a project 10 years down the road for reclaimation as most frequently it is seeded with a non-native, lower production grass like crested wheatgrass or smooth brome. The project then entails re-seeding again into some form of native range, which under dry land (meaning not irrigated) conditions has been proven to be the most productive in terms of palatable forage or what can be used by a grazing animal which includes wildlife. All in all it costs a lot of your money which could be better spent on services like education. Did you know that first year teachers in Montana have the lowest salaries in the nation? Just thought I would throw that in there.and does that include CRP
- Cat-theotherwhitemeat
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3156
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:45 pm
- Location: Billings
- Contact:
My eyes hurt. Could you guys add some pictures and maybe some graphs?
How about them Cats? They look pretty good this year...damn it.
How about them Cats? They look pretty good this year...damn it.
My avatar does not now, nor has in the past, depict a person of mentally challenged state. If you have a problem with it, please call the U.S. department of Bite my A$$. MTBuff/Administrator.
- LongTimeCatFan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8625
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Kalispell
Wow, lol, education is really taking place! I just really did not expect to hear that type of reaction from you. Congratulations!CTOWM said:How about them Cats? They look pretty good this year...damn it.
Keep reading, you might learn something and more importantly, become a more informed voter! We're just having fun tossing these issues around. Like BAC said, it gives me more practice for my students.CTOWM said:My eyes hurt. Could you guys add some pictures and maybe some graphs?
- SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 23960
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
I fully understand how the electoral college and the bicameral Congress works, and it is very easily shown that small states have a larger relative influence on the nation than the larger states. That's the way the system was designed (via a compromise that allowed the rural southern states enough political power to retain slavery for a little longer).LongTimeCatFan wrote:The electoral college is based on population and equal representation is achieved by having two houses. In the senate, everyone is afforded two senators, but in the house of reps, the amount of reps you get is based on population as well. Montana, only has ONE, and I'm not sure how many CA has, but it is more than 2. This is an unvalid argument.benefit greatly by the electoral college/equal representation in the Senate structure we have in place
It's not a coincidence that larger states end up paying more in taxes and receiving less in return at the federal level while the smaller states make a net profit (so to speak) from federal tax money. When one voter in Wyoming has four times as much power as one voter in Texas or California, it is obvious that they will be able to wield this power to their advantage. You can't refute the assertion that the residents and special interests of smaller states have more political power than their large state counterparts -- it's just impossible... and invalid.
So you're saying that they are using them now, and that's unfair? I honestly don't know much about the commodities markets, but I would assume that we would let foreign investors participate, similar to our stock and bond markets. The reason our country does so well is due in large part to foreign investment.By the way, you still haven't argued for letting other countries utilze our commodity exchanges.
[/quote]I don't even know why you vote. It seems you are terribly misled. LOL By the way, I did some research on this topic politically and I have found no evidence that it was pushed by republicans, but rather the democrats under Bill Clinton pushed to get it passed. Show me where you found your information because what I have found indicates Billy Bob is taking full credit.
If you want to vote Republican in the hopes that they will satisfy every union's dream of shutting down NAFTA and protecting US businesses from foreign competition, then go ahead. You kind of need to think about the whole big government/small government thing and how it relates to the two parties and which one probably favors true capitalism (which is what free trade is, absent government intervention) over a highly regulated economy.
I don't refute your positions for being against free trade (as you have defined it), but you have to at least then be open-minded enough to know that you are crossing over to the Democrats side on this one.
Back to the original point, I kinda doubt that Ted Turner is a big free trade guy, either. I think he'd be more down with the unions. See, you guys might have something in common.
- Cat-theotherwhitemeat
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3156
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:45 pm
- Location: Billings
- Contact:
You guys haven't taught me anything I didn't already know. However, I'm such an informed voter, I might not vote.LongTimeCatFan wrote:Wow, lol, education is really taking place! I just really did not expect to hear that type of reaction from you. Congratulations!CTOWM said:How about them Cats? They look pretty good this year...damn it.
Keep reading, you might learn something and more importantly, become a more informed voter! We're just having fun tossing these issues around. Like BAC said, it gives me more practice for my students.CTOWM said:My eyes hurt. Could you guys add some pictures and maybe some graphs?
High School teacher? College Professor?
My avatar does not now, nor has in the past, depict a person of mentally challenged state. If you have a problem with it, please call the U.S. department of Bite my A$$. MTBuff/Administrator.
- LongTimeCatFan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8625
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Kalispell
Well your're right. Just consider it your fee for allowing big states to assert more control of public lands in rural states. LOLIt's not a coincidence that larger states end up paying more in taxes and receiving less in return at the federal level while the smaller states make a net profit (so to speak) from federal tax money.
Hence our previous election! See you are smarter than the rest.You can't refute the assertion that the residents and special interests of smaller states have more political power than their large state counterparts -- it's just impossible
Ok the commodities exchanges and stock market work on similar principles, however are completely different animals. Sure, if the commodities market worked the same way the stock market worked, we wouldn't have a problem. The problem lies in the way the exchange is funded. I'm not opposed to foreign purchasers utilizing our exchanges for that is what they are intended. I am opposed to foreign producers utilizing our exchanges because WE fund it -- you and I a little and american producers a lot!So you're saying that they are using them now, and that's unfair? I honestly don't know much about the commodities markets, but I would assume that we would let foreign investors participate, similar to our stock and bond markets. The reason our country does so well is due in large part to foreign investment.
Ok, I will concede the this stance is slightly liberal, but I will not concede that this is a Democrat stance. Even though it is more toward the liberal side, it is still a Republican stance according to the record.I don't refute your positions for being against free trade (as you have defined it), but you have to at least then be open-minded enough to know that you are crossing over to the Democrats side on this one.
Believe me, I watch this stuff and the recent one that chapps my butt that the Republicans pushed through was "No Child Left Behind." Though I do agree that more attention needs to be given to improving education, this is another impossible idealistic pile of crap and would be more towards the liberal side. So see not always do parties do what you would think they would or would not do.
- SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 23960
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
In the upcoming Presidential election, not voting seems to be about the best answer. It comes down to which guy annoys me the least... and they are both fighting way too hard to push my vote to the other guy.Cat-theotherwhitemeat wrote: You guys haven't taught me anything I didn't already know. However, I'm such an informed voter, I might not vote.
Not that it really matters for me -- Kerry will take CA by a long shot, so my vote likely won't be in play (that would be the vote that counts for a lot less than the vote I would have if I was a MT voter).
That reminds me of one of the stupidest things I have ever heard a politician say. Right after the tie in 2000, the MT Secretary of State (a Democrat) was quoted as proclaiming that he thought the electoral college was a system that should be scrapped. Now, as a Democrat, I could see how that would be his personal opinion, even if it seemed a little too conveniently timed to be a sincerely strongly held opinion. But as an elected official of the state of Montana, there is NO excuse for being a proponent of getting rid of a system that gives that much power to your state and its residents. It seemed really bizarre to me at the time, and still does today.
Unless, of course, he simply wanted Montana to be forever ignored by every President and presidential candidate? Without the electoral college, the elections would pretty much be up to CA, NY, IL and TX to decide.
- LongTimeCatFan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8625
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Kalispell
Not voting is just simply the wrong answer. Even if our opinions may differ, I don't know if they do, I would still encourage you to vote.You guys haven't taught me anything I didn't already know. However, I'm such an informed voter, I might not vote.
High School teacher? College Professor?
As for the later, you are correct. Look in some of my previous posts to find your answer.
- Cat-theotherwhitemeat
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3156
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:45 pm
- Location: Billings
- Contact:
Silly boy, don't you know that Presidential elections are decided by FL.Bay Area Cat wrote:Without the electoral college, the elections would pretty much be up to CA, NY, IL and TX to decide.
My avatar does not now, nor has in the past, depict a person of mentally challenged state. If you have a problem with it, please call the U.S. department of Bite my A$$. MTBuff/Administrator.
- SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 23960
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
Of the four guys going for Pres and Veep right now, John Edwards is the only one on record who opposed (and still opposes) NAFTA. Kucinich, Sharpton, all Gephardt opposed it as well. Kerry voted for it the first time, so he couldn't come out against it without the "waffle" comments piling down, but indications are that he is pretty much against NAFTA without saying as much.LongTimeCatFan wrote:Ok, I will concede the this stance is slightly liberal, but I will not concede that this is a Democrat stance. Even though it is more toward the liberal side, it is still a Republican stance according to the record.I don't refute your positions for being against free trade (as you have defined it), but you have to at least then be open-minded enough to know that you are crossing over to the Democrats side on this one.
Face it, dude. You're a democrat. Stinkin' liberal. Should I start looking for an apartment for you down here?
- SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 23960
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
- LongTimeCatFan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8625
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Kalispell
- Cat-theotherwhitemeat
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3156
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:45 pm
- Location: Billings
- Contact:
I hate you for making me look it upLongTimeCatFan wrote: Not voting is just simply the wrong answer. Even if our opinions may differ, I don't know if they do, I would still encourage you to vote.
As for the later, you are correct. Look in some of my previous posts to find your answer.
BFE, Montana huh? I grew up in BFE, Montana and I can't remember seeing you My FFA teacher hated me.
I used to think like you, that not voting is simply the wrong answer. However, after working in a political setting (we'll call it), politicions have lost my respect.
My avatar does not now, nor has in the past, depict a person of mentally challenged state. If you have a problem with it, please call the U.S. department of Bite my A$$. MTBuff/Administrator.
- Cat-theotherwhitemeat
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3156
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:45 pm
- Location: Billings
- Contact:
- LongTimeCatFan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8625
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Kalispell
- Cat-theotherwhitemeat
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3156
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:45 pm
- Location: Billings
- Contact:
I think the Governor's race in Montana is already over. Judy pretty much locked it for Demo's.
BAC, I don't know if I told you this or not, but you and I are exact opposites when it comes politics....I'm conservative on social issues, Liberal on fiscal issues. I'm confused as to what party I should be attending.
BAC, I don't know if I told you this or not, but you and I are exact opposites when it comes politics....I'm conservative on social issues, Liberal on fiscal issues. I'm confused as to what party I should be attending.
My avatar does not now, nor has in the past, depict a person of mentally challenged state. If you have a problem with it, please call the U.S. department of Bite my A$$. MTBuff/Administrator.
- Cat-theotherwhitemeat
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3156
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:45 pm
- Location: Billings
- Contact:
isn't side-stepping the political american way?LongTimeCatFan wrote:Why not Bob Brown? In the previous debate, Bob was answering questions based on facts that he could back up. I didn't see his counterpart doing that. He just tried to sidestep issues in typical politician form.
I'm actually not a big fan of either one.
My avatar does not now, nor has in the past, depict a person of mentally challenged state. If you have a problem with it, please call the U.S. department of Bite my A$$. MTBuff/Administrator.
- SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 23960
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
Man, you're really messed up, then. Exactly the opposite of perfect.Cat-theotherwhitemeat wrote:I think the Governor's race in Montana is already over. Judy pretty much locked it for Demo's.
BAC, I don't know if I told you this or not, but you and I are exact opposites when it comes politics....I'm conservative on social issues, Liberal on fiscal issues. I'm confused as to what party I should be attending.
I'm kind of at a loss as well, but that generally means I can always find something to disagree on with every person who wants to talk politics.
You don't have to answer this, but your general position sounds really consistent with a Catholic outlook on things. Is that a factor for you?
- Cat-theotherwhitemeat
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3156
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:45 pm
- Location: Billings
- Contact:
Just call me alter boy. But I haven't been to church since I was 18. how did you come to that? no, not a factor. I'm not a "good" catholic.Bay Area Cat wrote:Man, you're really messed up, then. Exactly the opposite of perfect.Cat-theotherwhitemeat wrote:I think the Governor's race in Montana is already over. Judy pretty much locked it for Demo's.
BAC, I don't know if I told you this or not, but you and I are exact opposites when it comes politics....I'm conservative on social issues, Liberal on fiscal issues. I'm confused as to what party I should be attending.
I'm kind of at a loss as well, but that generally means I can always find something to disagree on with every person who wants to talk politics.
You don't have to answer this, but your general position sounds really consistent with a Catholic outlook on things. Is that a factor for you?
My avatar does not now, nor has in the past, depict a person of mentally challenged state. If you have a problem with it, please call the U.S. department of Bite my A$$. MTBuff/Administrator.