• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

It's Official Ranchers.net is a Hate Forum

R

Ranchero

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
100
It's Official Ranchers.net is a Hate Forum.
Thanks to Haywipe and company. Ranchers.net is sponsoring hate mongering. This forum is not a friendly place for ranchers to get together to exchange ideas on their similar lifestyles. It is a forum for lowlife people of low moral character (ie. Haywipe, Sandbagger, Oldtimer etc. etc. etc. ) to insult others because of geographical differences. It's really sad to have the unfortunate experience of coming to this forum only to be constantly insulted by a bunch of low life morons. I wouldn't put them in the same class as ranchers. The ranchers I have been affiliated with would never cohort with such losers as I have seen here. I've lived with ranchers all my life and have never been a party to the likes here.
Best of Luck and adios,
Ranchero
 
Adios amigo................Im bettin that foul mouth of yours wont be missed much.................good luck
 
Perhaps if you'd have read more then Political Bull. Those of us the fight in there keep it there (pretty much) when visiting ranch talk, coffee shop, etc.

Wanting to make note I have yet to insult this person so for once I'm not one of the low life morons. Patting self on back.
 
Ranchero said:
It's Official Ranchers.net is a Hate Forum.
Thanks to Haywipe and company. Ranchers.net is sponsoring hate mongering. This forum is not a friendly place for ranchers to get together to exchange ideas on their similar lifestyles. It is a forum for lowlife people of low moral character (ie. Haywipe, Sandbagger, Oldtimer etc. etc. etc. ) to insult others because of geographical differences. It's really sad to have the unfortunate experience of coming to this forum only to be constantly insulted by a bunch of low life morons. I wouldn't put them in the same class as ranchers. The ranchers I have been affiliated with would never cohort with such losers as I have seen here. I've lived with ranchers all my life and have never been a party to the likes here.
Best of Luck and adios,
Ranchero
Click to expand...

Pendejo
 
Ranchero said:
It's Official Ranchers.net is a Hate Forum.
Thanks to Haywipe and company. Ranchers.net is sponsoring hate mongering. This forum is not a friendly place for ranchers to get together to exchange ideas on their similar lifestyles. It is a forum for lowlife people of low moral character (ie. Haywipe, Sandbagger, Oldtimer etc. etc. etc. ) to insult others because of geographical differences. It's really sad to have the unfortunate experience of coming to this forum only to be constantly insulted by a bunch of low life morons. I wouldn't put them in the same class as ranchers. The ranchers I have been affiliated with would never cohort with such losers as I have seen here. I've lived with ranchers all my life and have never been a party to the likes here.
Best of Luck and adios,
Ranchero
Click to expand...
In all fairness Ranchers.net is anything BUT a hate forum,unfortunatly you picked the worst site to visit,Bull and political aren't really known as the friendliest places...try Ranchtalk or Coffeeshop,its much better.

And I'm sure that Loomix was being friendly with his "word" :? :roll: Anyways if you can just ignore the attitudes sometimes portrayed here you'll find out theres WAY more decent people here then not.... :)
 
Don't go out like that Ranchero,Fight the good fight.Most of the rousing in Bull and Political can be taken with a grain of salt.The folks on here for the most part like Mrs.Greg says are good people.Go to some other forums and get to know folks.Feliz Navidad Mi Amigo.
 
I don't feel its a hate forum at all. The majority of these people are simply trying to make a living and enjoy life, just like you are.

The unfortunate part (as I see it) is that the USA and European Union are pushing other countries into a global government which the United Nations will be in charge of. These countries are all for it if they get free trade agreements where they get to export all their goods (after all that boosts their economy) and they only take in a third or half of the same value in imports. All other countries don't want to be bombarded with imports and they put up trade tariffs (Japan is a fine example with their beef) and barriers so they don't have to.

The american people have watched these free trade agreements export jobs and all we do is import goods. Service economy is what the nitwits keep pushing. Trade tariffs on imported goods are the only way the US got out of the depression in the 30's and that money goes directly into the treasury, not the federal reserve so of course they don't want the US to erect trade tariffs. The central bankers are a private group (all over the world, not just here in the USA (for example Goldman Sachs of China has the same main owners as Goldman Sachs of New York ) who are greedy and want to control all, not just money, but the economy, the people, food, and all aspects of life. They want a lower standard of living for Americans so they can compete globally.

The president blubbers about terrorism to scare Americans into giving up sovereignty of this nation and our rights while maintaining open borders which promotes terrorism. Actually if they can create race wars within the US and have people fighting each other, it leaves them to plunder more of the assets of this country because they won't have the spotlight on them.
 
It's not the USA and European Union pushing other countries into a global government/economy, it's the global corporations in these countries because they are the ones that will benefit. National sovereignty is the threat to them and thins like COOL are a pro-national sovereignty tool.
 
Which "free trade agreements" have cut the importers duty (tax) and raised the US products' duty to enter the other country?

mrj
 
it's the global corporations in these countries because they are the ones that will benefit
Click to expand...

Its American corporations that went overseas RM and became global so they could find the cheapest labor.

Every country's economy has been built around the USA consuming its exports.

Trade deficits are a problem and we can't be a sovereign nation owing trillions of dollars to foreigners and some of them communists. We complain about Saudi Arabia and the Middle east but whom has given them such financial gains??? Why the US of course because we won't drill for oil on our own land.

China received permission last week from the Federal Reserve to open a bank in New York, that would have been unheard of ten years ago.............. and the silence from the mainstream news media about it is a crime.

I read in ChinaDaily a story about a guy who worked in a factory over there as a supervisor and made $50 per month working 7 days a week, 10-12 hours a day................ who can work for those kind of wages over here.......... we'd all be running to Mexico for their $5.00 a day at that rate and would think we'd hit the jackpot.
These other countries don't want to let their currency float and want to keep it suppressed (and it's not just China here, its all the countries) so that their exports are cheap.
 
hyp....are you forgetting the offshore and Alaskan oil fields mostly untapped to this point, as well as the oil shale now more available with new technologies for recovery? Not to mention our natural gas and coal reserves. We obviously have been handicapped by the EcoFreako's among us in finding and developing anything that is not 'ecofriendly' and nuclear power development in the USA is lagging way behind other countries.

Energy is the fuel of private enterprise.......is it any surprise many people who hate private enterprise are fighting use of practical and COST EFFECTIVE energy resources in the USA?

mrj
 
How many barrels do they expect to get out of Alaska anyway?

I believe they say it would last the US about 2 years at present rate of usage.

Have you done any reading about this yet MRJ? Why was it not one of the big oil companies or OPEC boosted production substancially when oil was at $147? They always have in the past?

We should have a real good discussion on here about Peak oil and what it means. But I don't have time right now.

I'll put some good reading together and start the subject in a new post, but for now if you have time watch a couple of these videos, interesting stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOBPNtupL_Q&feature=related


there are 6 more in addition to these 2. If you can't find them, let me know.
 
Even if oil demand was to remain flat to 2030, 45 mb/d of gross capacity – roughly four
times the current capacity of Saudi Arabia – would need to be built worldwide by 2030
just to offset the effect of oilfield decline. Massive investment will be needed to achieve
this. Total upstream investment (in oil and gas fields) more than tripled between 2000 and
2007 to $390 billion. But most of this increase was to meet higher unit costs. Although the
amount of investment needed annually over the projection period is lower than actual
spending at present, much more capital needs to go to the resource-rich regions, notably
the Middle East, where unit costs are lowest.
Click to expand...
 
I'm with the rest of the gang Gail...EXCELLENT!

I've been a petroleum geologist for over 30 years and study every analysis of PO I run across. By far the best aspect of your efforts is condensing a complex technical issue to a digestable but complete story for the general public.

The only point I would add regards the use of phrases about what "will or won't save us from PO". Nothing will "save us from PO"...even if we were to discover an entire new Saudi Arabia and magically put it online overnight we would not be saved from PO. It might delay PO for 30 or 40 years but from a purely logical view we were destined to hit PO the day Col. Drake drilled that first well...it was always just a question of when.

I'm an advocate of expanding oil extraction to any area of the country where it can be done in a sound environmental way. No...the added production (regardless how fast or slow it comes online) won't save us from PO. As bad as the immediate prospects are for the impact of PO imagine how much worse the current situation would be had not the Deep Water Gulf of Mexico play started up 10 years. Had not those new fields kicked in your story line would have probably been out here 5 years sooner. But the earliest of these fields have declined significantly aleady.

We do need to quickly develop alternatives, nuclear, etc. But we all appreciate the time lag involved . Additional production, however long it would take to ramp up, would provide a small but needed cushon to make the transition. A drastic and mandatory conseration effort is the only "quick" adjustment available to us. Such an effort may be required but the negative impact upon the economy would likely mimic our expectations of the post PO world. Hopefully with the efforts of you and others the public might understand the importance of not wasting whatever breather room addition oil extraction might allow. But if they do slip back to business as usually then any additional drilling efforts would be pointless in the long term.
Click to expand...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top