newsobserver.com projects - Fletcher Hartsell - Comments

Re: Quick Hits

Gosh — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:15:05 -0400

I am still awaiting your refute of my arguments as to why it was appropriate to water board Mohammed...

You already admitted you were against waterboarding in that thread after being caught in countless other false assertions.

What particular coffin nail are you waiting for now? You conceded waterboarding is torture, and then threw Burr under a bus.

You don't get this debate stuff at all do you, Citizen?

When you lose, it's over!

Re: Quick Hits

CitizenOpinionated — Fri, 01 May 2009 10:56:48 -0400

It is simply precious that you are so overly self-absorbed...

I am still awaiting your refute of my arguments as to why it was appropriate to water board Mohammed...

Simply precious!

Re: Quick Hits

Gosh — Fri, 01 May 2009 09:47:48 -0400

Simply precious CO. Simply precious.

Re: Quick Hits

CitizenOpinionated — Fri, 01 May 2009 09:28:42 -0400

Well Gosh - not that I am defending Paul - never met him - not in my district - how about you run for office since apparently you have two cents to say about everyone conservative. Why not put your money where your mouth is instead of hiding behind some pin name? I would run but I am too young and it is funny because I am probably able to defeat you in any political debate about the issues. What does that say for you moon bat?

OMG Paul Terrell

Gosh — Fri, 01 May 2009 00:03:18 -0400

With 17,245 registered Republican and Independent voters in NC House 33, you only got 7,199 votes. Wow, I feel so bad for you.

Not that 18 percent of the vote is anything to laugh at. Percentage-wise you're at least half as succesful as Keith Olbermann that just called Virgina Foxx the Worst Person in the World. You know, compared to the 82 percent rejection you just received from the mainstream Americans you sought to represent with your wingnuttery, I mean...

What. Is. Wrong. With. Normal. People.

Huh?

Know what I'm saying? Your ideology is clearly right. Guess we're all just dumb, huh!?

Keep hate alive Paul Terrell, Man of the People with 3 Roman Numerals after your name. No embarrassing rejection by mainstream America should ever stop you from talking about Fox News ratings to defend your wackiness in my book.

Re: Quick Hits

Gosh — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:05:41 -0400

Who even watches that hate mongerer?

Virgina Foxx? I don't know, like a few thousand on CSPAN I guess.

Millions more just got introduced to her on MSNBC though.

Probably not as many as watch Bill O'Reilly, but are you saying he called Virginia Foxx the "Best Person in the World" and defended her hate mongering in order to actually make your argument of ratings relevant?

Say, since we're talking ratings and popularity to make our point.

Dan Blue (DEM)
81.85% 32,466
Paul F. Terrell, III (REP)
18.15% 7,199

Stay as precious as you are irrelevant.

Re: Quick Hits

PaulTerrell — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:00:55 -0400

Who even watches that hate mongerer? O'Reilly blows his doors off in any kind of ratings contest. Even Hannity squashes Olbermann in the ratings.

Re: The Tobacco Caucus

cdtew — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:31:59 -0500

I haven't seen any numbers on this directly, but according to the NCDA's statistics, we exported $409,600,000 of raw tobacco in 2007. If that is included in the total cash receipts for tobacco (~$586,451,000), then it can be assumed that nearly 70% of tobacco profits come from exports out of the state.

I would still say that $186 million is a large amount of money for certain eastern counties,and there's possibly a generalized interest that the legislators that represent all tobacco counties might have in seeing no state adopt such regulations. The regulations are, let's admit it, ultimately aimed at reducing smoking by making it more inconvenient to be a smoker (as well as the short-term benefit of reducing second-hand smoke). That attenuated concern, however, is probably why ~45% of legislators from "Grower" districts voted for a smoking ban.

Re: The Tobacco Caucus

danmanley2299 — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:25:00 -0500

Locke,

I would expect nothing less from you, using your holier than thou research to pull up such repugnant regimes to prove a point. Very clever, you might want to realize it’s 2K9, and that fear mongering is not working like it use to. A ten second research into places that ban smoking can easily counteract your rhetoric of “societies” and will show places that most folks wouldn’t mind being compared to. I think you are plenty smart, but it may be time to reinvent your self and find a new way to trounce on peoples emotions and fears.

No one is attempting a “puritanical ban” on smoking; folks will be able to still get their highs from smoking. I think when someone else’s puritanical enjoyment of smoking leaves their lungs and enters into airspace shared by children, elderly, and pregnant women is when concern arises.

On another note, I would like to know the percentage of leaf grown in NC that stays in NC. That is the real question. These companies are buying leaf grown oversees because it is not regulated and less controlled. Moreover, there high quality products are being sent overseas where there is a market for it.

Good day.

Re: The Tobacco Caucus

GrayJ — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:01:38 -0500

While I understand this post to a degree, you must understand that the "tobacco caucus" is actually much larger. Because Reynolds American has thousands of current employees and a lot more retirees (for the most part who are ardently loyal) that live in several counties surrounding Winston-Salem. I believe any legislator from Forsyth, Davie, Davidson (excluding Holliman), Stokes, Surry, and Yadkin could easily be included in the tobacco caucus.

Re: The Tobacco Caucus

jonoflocke — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:20:41 -0500

While we're compiling useful information, I wouldn't mind a look into societies that have enacted the kind of puritanical bans on the enjoyment of tobacco that are under discussion here. In my own limited observations, I've counted Nazi Germany, the Soviet bloc, Cuba (here is a tobacco-producing police state), and al Qaeda when they can. In the U.S., of course, it's an idea that spans political parties; e.g., both Sen. Clinton and Gov. Huckabee support it.

Re: The Tobacco Caucus

ryanteaguebeckwith — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:58:08 -0500

Updated to include Tobaccoville. Thanks!

— RTB

Re: The Tobacco Caucus

PoliticalJunkie — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:11:19 -0500

There is at least one huge Reynolds plant in Stokes County. Tobbaccoville anyone?

http://www.tobaccovillenc.org/

Re: The Tobacco Caucus

cdtew — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:39:48 -0500

Here's a good link for cash receipts, by county, for tobacco (including burley, but as you can see from the counties listed, we're talking solely about flue-cured):

http://www.ncagr.gov/stats/economic/cashreceipts/tobacco.htm

As far as tobacco growers' concern comes into play, I think it actually would have a significant effect in certain ares.

As far as I understand (and I am liable to be wrong), since 2004 or so, the contract system has developed such that in some areas (Wilson county I believe to be one of them), the actual number of tobacco farms and farmers have decreased, but tobacco acreage, output and cash receipts have expanded -- only in the hands of a smaller number of growers.

On the other hand, many areas have seen tobacco growers, acreage and receipts fall severely (Wake county being the most obvious example).

In the wake of this legislation, as well as corresponding legislation in other states, I feel that manufacturers would be forced to charge more for the product, pay less for the tobacco, or buy less tobacco. While the first option would be easiest for growers, I think its somewhat less likely, given tax trends on cigarettes.

It seems to me that the other two options would therefore disproportionately affect certain legislators' districts, and because of the concentrated nature of tobacco production, would have both an equal or greater percentage impact on the local economy relative to the revenue decrease (modified by overhead costs), as well has have a large, although much shallower secondary impact on the local service economy.

Now, I fully believe my economics could be backwards like a demolition derby, but it makes sense in my head. I guess this sort of thinking should be left for the economists, because I've left out the whole host of government funding for alternative crop programs, CRP benefits, etc, etc.

Re: The Tobacco Caucus

ryanteaguebeckwith — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:05:04 -0500

Hmmm... Any suggestions on where to find this information?

That said, I think it's not as big of a deal to tobacco growers as it is to cigarette manufacturers and retailers.

— RTB