Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
This is nanny state bullshit that should never be permitted.

Indeed. Folks on the left decry when (religious) conservatives attempt to push laws and regulations that affect the personal lives of the people and yet many turn around and support bans like those in New York. I can't fathom it as I am against both types of intrusion. Listen people. The state is not there to be your parent, it is not there to coddle you or support you. That is not the point nor was it ever the point of government in the United States.
 

Vette Boss

Forum Addict
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
5,250
Location
United States, Britain, in time
Car(s)
2006 Volkswagen Passat 3.6 VR6
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but...

If educating people about the dangers in over indulging it sweets, sodas and snacks was as effective as marketing for these items we wouldn't have this problem.

Or I am off base?

I think if you told people that a large caramel mocha from Starbucks was equivalent to an ice cream sundae, then some of them would change their minds about it. Educating people about what they're consuming is important. You have to reach them at a young age, though.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
I'm fine with education. If you feel that education is deficient then it is entirely on those who feel that it is required. Does not mean you need to ban things. Give people the choice. That is the United States in a nutshell, choice. We give you the choice, the freedom, to make the wrong decision, to fail. That is complete freedom, complete liberty. To deny people choice is oppression.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but...

If educating people about the dangers in over indulging it sweets, sodas and snacks was as effective as marketing for these items we wouldn't have this problem.

Or I am off base?
Education is good but evolutionary speaking we are wired to eat all the food we can as soon as it is available because about 100 years of abundance is not enough to trick millions of "lean" years when most of us didn't know when the next meal was going to happen.
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,004
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
-Fourth, if you'd have done a little reading on US history you'd know that Obama is quite a right-wing president for a Democrat. His positions on all major issues (including welfare and taxes) are similar to Nixon's, who, last time I checked, was not exactly a commie.

Not that I don't believe you but do you have any examples? I've always considered Obama a left-leaning moderate. However, if you talk to many of the guys I work with (Gen X neo-conservatives) you'd think we were under the leadership of Stalin...
 

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
14,414
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
Not that I don't believe you but do you have any examples? I've always considered Obama a left-leaning moderate. However, if you talk to many of the guys I work with (Gen X neo-conservatives) you'd think we were under the leadership of Stalin...
Here's one article by economist and blogger Paul Krugman, a self-described liberal critic of Obama. He's referring this post by Bush Sr. and Reagan economic advisor Bruce Bartlett.

As both are economists, they focus on fiscal policy and (welfare) spending, mostly. But no matter what the conservatives say, Obama's targeted killing/secret courts/shadow war program is much more hawkish than Nixons de-facto capitulation and drawback in 'Nam. Add to that that military spending (both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the US budget) is at an post-cold war high and there's not much left of the conservative myth of Obama the military-crippling dove.
 

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
14,414
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
FEMA Camps are a conspiracy theory. Note that he is speaking about the "remaining Guantanamo detainees" not about FEMA camps.

I think that this "prolonged detention" scheme is very questionable, even though Obama explicitly refers to POWs, who by law can be kept prisoner without a trial until hostilities end, to prevent them from becoming a threat again.

The problem is that if "hostilities" are not defined one conflict (like Afghanistan or Irak) but as the ongoing "war on terror", the established rules regarding POWs suddenly become life imprisonment without trial. And it seems like that's the route Obama wants to take, the "legal framework" he wants to establish.
 
Last edited:

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
14,414
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
...but then torture would be banned by the same set of rules.
Exactly. That's why he needs his "new set".
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,004
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
This makes me absolutely livid...

The US House of Representatives quietly passed a last-minute addition to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 last week - including a provision protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks.

The rider, which is officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the ?Monsanto Protection Act,? as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.

The provision, also decried as a ?biotech rider,? should have gone through the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees for review. Instead, no hearings were held, and the piece was evidently unknown to most Democrats (who hold the majority in the Senate) prior to its approval as part of HR 993, the short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.

Senator John Tester (D-MT) proved to be the lone dissenter to the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, though his proposed amendment to strip the rider from the bill was never put to a vote.

As the US legal system functions today, and largely as a result of prior lawsuits, the USDA is required to complete environmental impact statements (EIS) prior to both the planting and sale of GMO crops. The extent and effectiveness to which the USDA exercises this rule is in itself a source of serious dispute.

The reviews have been the focus of heated debate between food safety advocacy groups and the biotech industry in the past. In December of 2009, for example, Food Democracy Now collected signatures during the EIS commenting period in a bid to prevent the approval of Monsanto?s GMO alfalfa, which many feared would contaminate organic feed used by dairy farmers; it was approved regardless.

Previously discovered pathogens in Monsanto?s Roundup Ready corn and soy are suspected of causing infertility in livestock and to impact the health of plants.

So, just how much of a victory is this for biotech companies like Monsanto? Critics are thus far alarmed by the very way in which the provision made it through Congress -- the rider was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed through the Senate Appropriations Committee. Now, groups like the Center for Food Safety are holding Senator Mikulski (D-MD), chairman of that committee, to task and lobbing accusations of a ?backroom deal? with the biotech industry.

As the Washington Times points out, the provision?s success is viewed by many as a victory by companies like Syngenta Corp, Cargill, Monsanto and affiliated PACs that have donated $7.5 million to members of Congress since 2009, and $372,000 to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

It remains unclear whether the bill?s six-month expiration means that the provision will be short-lived. Regardless, Food Democracy Now has begun a campaign calling on US President Barack Obama to veto the Continuing Resolution spending bill, which seems unlikely as HR 933 includes a sweeping amount of government funding.

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-congress-silently-slips-830/
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT

Now my stance on GMO's is that it's really nothing but accelerated artificial selection and people need to chill the fuck out about it BUT this kind of crap should not be permitted. In a land where you can sue McDonald's for having hot coffee not allowing someone to sue companies for using unproven technology that may have health risks makes no damn sense....
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,004
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
Now my stance on GMO's is that it's really nothing but accelerated artificial selection and people need to chill the fuck out about it BUT this kind of crap should not be permitted. In a land where you can sue McDonald's for having hot coffee not allowing someone to sue companies for using unproven technology that may have health risks makes no damn sense....

The problem isn't the necessarily the genetically modified part, it's the chemicals used to facilitate the process and little is known about the dangers they may posses. Monsanto has a very very shady history and are probably the last company I would trust when it comes to matters of food supply.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
21,282
Location
Michigan USA
Is this the same guy that said we should just trust nuclear engineers(paraphrased)?

We should just label all foods that contain GMO products. People have already shown they don't want to consume this stuff.

Btw, GMO are nothing to do breeding, or artificial selection. It is genetically modified with genes from who knows where, that may or may not have consequences that we don't know anything about.
 
Last edited:

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,004
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
Is this the same guy that said we should just trust nuclear engineers(paraphrased)?

Red herring?

...and if you're trying to compare the two industries you'd have better luck comparing apples and oranges. The chemical industry has exponentially more blood on their hands.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
The problem isn't the necessarily the genetically modified part, it's the chemicals used to facilitate the process and little is known about the dangers they may posses. Monsanto has a very very shady history and are probably the last company I would trust when it comes to matters of food supply.

Yeah I wouldn't trust Monsanto either.

- - - Updated - - -

Btw, GMO are nothing to do breeding, or artificial selection. It is genetically modified with genes from who knows where, that may or may not have consequences that we don't know anything about.
Genetic engineering is faster and more precise than breeding/artificial selection but in the end it's the same thing really, you are making something new through manipulating it's genetic make up. Now we can just do it directly. The single biggest issue with GMOs is that they use antibiotic resistance as markers and that has a potential to create ab resistant bacteria when consumed by animals.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
21,282
Location
Michigan USA
No it is not the same thing. Selective breeding adapts traits within the plants that already exist to become more prominant. Gentically engieneering pulls genes from other species in to do something that was never intended by nature to be in a plant.
 
Top