Democrats ban frying for the DNC Convention

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: nick1985
Is grape drank soda being served?

Why? Run out of grape Kool-Aid?

Nope, ran out of orange flavored soda

 

[MovingTarget]

Good thing it isn't being held in the South itself. There would be riots.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: herm0016
next they will be telling us all what we can eat! how can anyone think this is a good thing?? I think i'm going to fry something today.

Yes, the democrats want to tell you whether to put on sock, sock, shoe, shoe, or sock, shoe, sock, shoe. Vote for Republicans who are all about your rights!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Sometimes, good ideas, like eating healthier, aren't as sexy as big bombs and stuff.

I guess that's one of the differences between the parties.

Yea, Republicans give you the choice to eat healthy if you want. The Democrats force you to eat healthy.

Yet some how people claim that the Republicans are the ones taking away our freedoms?

You're making a fool of yourself by comparing the menu at a Democratic Party event with the illegal wiretapping of the US public at the order of the President.

However, you are providing information on some of the problems with your politics at the same time. Start with the dishonest straw man you use for the Democratic Party.

It unwittingly shows how little you have to attack about when you make such a weak post. Are you now going to say you were kidding?

Craig what is more invasive in your day to day life.

1. The government listening in on phone calls of suspected terrorists.
or
2. The government telling you what you can't eat or what you can't drive or what types of guns you can own or, via the fairness doctrine, what you can listen to on the radio etc.

Hillary summed up the Democrats best with her "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." line.
They want to take away fatty foods because they are bad for you. They want to take away SUVs because they are bad for the environment. They want to take away guns because too many people die via guns. They want to take away your right to listen to whatever radio programs you want because the shows aren't "fair" and don't present a "balanced view"

The Republicans are listening in on your phone calls while the Democrats are looking over your shoulder all day. Both are wrong, but which act is more invasive?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Sometimes, good ideas, like eating healthier, aren't as sexy as big bombs and stuff.

I guess that's one of the differences between the parties.

Yea, Republicans give you the choice to eat healthy if you want. The Democrats force you to eat healthy.

Yet some how people claim that the Republicans are the ones taking away our freedoms?

You're making a fool of yourself by comparing the menu at a Democratic Party event with the illegal wiretapping of the US public at the order of the President.

However, you are providing information on some of the problems with your politics at the same time. Start with the dishonest straw man you use for the Democratic Party.

It unwittingly shows how little you have to attack about when you make such a weak post. Are you now going to say you were kidding?

Craig what is more invasive in your day to day life.

1. The government listening in on phone calls of suspected terrorists.
or
2. The government telling you what you can't eat or what you can't drive or what types of guns you can own or, via the fairness doctrine, what you can listen to on the radio etc.

Hillary summed up the Democrats best with her "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." line.
They want to take away fatty foods because they are bad for you. They want to take away SUVs because they are bad for the environment. They want to take away guns because too many people die via guns. They want to take away your right to listen to whatever radio programs you want because the shows aren't "fair" and don't present a "balanced view"

The Republicans are listening in on your phone calls while the Democrats are looking over your shoulder all day. Both are wrong, but which act is more invasive?

Yeah, because the only form of govt invasiveness that the Republicans are in favor of is wire-tapping...
They NEVER want to tell people what to do with their bodies, like drugs or abortion, or their sexual mores, or how otherwise people want to live their lives....

:roll:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Sometimes, good ideas, like eating healthier, aren't as sexy as big bombs and stuff.

I guess that's one of the differences between the parties.

Yea, Republicans give you the choice to eat healthy if you want. The Democrats force you to eat healthy.

Yet some how people claim that the Republicans are the ones taking away our freedoms?

You're making a fool of yourself by comparing the menu at a Democratic Party event with the illegal wiretapping of the US public at the order of the President.

However, you are providing information on some of the problems with your politics at the same time. Start with the dishonest straw man you use for the Democratic Party.

It unwittingly shows how little you have to attack about when you make such a weak post. Are you now going to say you were kidding?

Craig what is more invasive in your day to day life.

1. The government listening in on phone calls of suspected terrorists.
or
2. The government telling you what you can't eat or what you can't drive or what types of guns you can own or, via the fairness doctrine, what you can listen to on the radio etc.

PJ, you make the same basic mistakes over and over. Let's look at them agian.

One, you are once again dishonestly summarizing the issue. The government listening in on the calls of suspected terrorists does not accurately reflect the issue - that would be handled just fine by the law to use the FISA courts, the law the administration violated, lied about violating, and took a dangerous position about a 'unitary executive' to claim they had the right to violate, like any law or even court decision they want to ignore if they say it's part of his 'commander in chief' actions.

You also dishonestly summarize the fairness doctrine as 'the government telling you what you can and can't listen to and watch' as if it were some big censorship policy. It's not.

Two, you set up this false dichotomy as if you can excuse one wrong, if you can only show that the other side has done a larger one.

The wrong on violating Americans' fourth amendment rights is not affected by the second issue. If you're just wanting a 'which party is worse on this' discussion, fine, but the problem is you tend to equate that to 'the wiretapping is ok'. Why don't you stick to the issue at hand, the democrats' menu and what it means.

Three, let's look at the concerns you raised.

Do you mean how the democrats *actually* limit what I eat (I'd probably benefit if they regulated it more, not that I'm advocating that), or the PJ straw man democrats?

I'm glad the democrats limit 'what I can eat' to keep horses and dogs and endangered species off the free market menu. I'm glad they don't let me buy contaminated foods for the most part. I'm glad they don't let me buy foods created by workers in unsafe conditions for too low of wages (well, they're still low).

I guess you're in favor of those and more since you are against 'the government telling you what you can eat'.

Or did you mean the PJ straw man democrats who will ban snack foods as 'non-essential waste of food', ban steaks as 'inefficient for the environment'? Ya, I'm against them.

Guns, did you mean the democrats who say that neither I nor the gang members the next block over can have saturday night specials? Or hand grenades?

I guess you are in favor of any guns at all being legal for anyone to own, since you are against the government telling you what guns you can own.

Or did you mean the PJ straw man demorats where citizens can't buy a rifle, but only toy guns? Ya, I'm against them.

The government letting me see what it wants - did you mean where they don't allow for copyrighted material to be shown without license, protecting our system for creating such products? Did you mean where they don't allow libel and slander without legal remedies to those hurt? Did you mean where we're not allowed to ask for the president to be assassinated and organize the plot in the media? There aren't many limits.

The fairness doctrine - which a lot of Republicans have voted for, too - does not limit one word of free speech. The way it worked was that, on the rare occassions a viewer felt something was unbalanced, the station had to give the time for some response. As I understand, it typically wasn't even the same amount of time, and there were some protections for frivolous challenges (guess which party I think is the one who would make frivolous challenges most).

No, you're on the side of the media not supportnig democratic values, by allowing the five corporations who own it to dominate the content and shape public opinion - the little guy is not recognized by you. You are happy to see the many examples of the media ignoring important stories when it's in their interest but not the public's. Of course, the system is working fine, which is how the public was so we--informed as to nearly elect George Bush in 2000.

But did you mean the PJ straw man democrats who will censor word by word the content of all tv shows? Ya, I'm against them.

You put up these half baked misleading things that do not stand up to any scrutiny.

Hillary summed up the Democrats best with her "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." line.

As we've talked about before, you again like to misrepresent things.

You present the quote as if from your straw man democrats who are going to come take your television in the name of the treehugging budget. So, you're against taking things away from you on behalf of the common good? Then you are against food safety inspections, medicare, the entire criminal justice system, libraries, any military, or any of the other things the government does for the 'public good', all of which require funds, which come from one place, taking things from you.

Those all fit her quote. But you're trying to distort the quote by saying well you don't mean what she did say, you mean your distortion of it.

She was telling people who are so rabidly anti-tax that they don't want to pay a cent in taxes, while they want all the benefits, the facts of life.

It's like when Roberty Kennedy, running for president, spoke of his plans for anti-poverty programs to a wealthy college audience, and was asked, 'Who s going to pay for this?'

"You will", he answered. He understood the fact that those with more will pay *some* more for the good of society. That's how sane people view the issue, IMO.

(He also put himself in some physical danger speaking to audiences of young communists and telling them they were wrong).

You are not accurately representing her message, as you try to turn it into some radical message as if she had said she was taking all your property.

You can't defend the policies of your party on fiscal responsibility, so you try for these 'debater points', hey you got a quote you can stretch woo hoo.

They want to take away fatty foods because they are bad for you. They want to take away SUVs because they are bad for the environment. They want to take away guns because too many people die via guns. They want to take away your right to listen to whatever radio programs you want because the shows aren't "fair" and don't present a "balanced view"

Yes. They want to make vaccinations mandatory because it's in the public health interest. They want to make food preparer bathroom hand washing the law because it's in the public interest for health and preference. They want to make cars have seat belts, and make you wear them, because the arguments for doing so are so compelling, despite the fact that there are rare exceptions where the seat belt could harm you.

Your distorted summaries aside, you don't even get the basics right, such as that democrats are not calling for 'banning fatty foods' that I've seen. They might want to educate you on them, they might want to incent you to avoid them when the taxpayers are paying for your choice, they might want to ban the worst types (trans fat which are health disasters but profitable), and I say good. Republicans are consistently opposing the improvements Democrts make, and then usually taking them for granted as good ideas.

There were big cries against seat belts and helmets and fluoride in water and much more. You don't hear a lot about that.

The Republicans are listening in on your phone calls while the Democrats are looking over your shoulder all day. Both are wrong, but which act is more invasive?

To say something positive, good for you for at least saying the wiretapping is wrong.

 

[SAWYER]

LOL party cheerleaders

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
LOL party cheerleaders

of any persuasion.

 

[IGBT]

..no surprise. it's the liberal vision of things to come when they get elected. Thru the ecoGreen Slime movement they will dictate life style and behavior. Tax all energy use and do nothing to increase energy supply.. your obama said so.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..no surprise. it's the liberal vision of things to come when they get elected. Thru the ecoGreen Slime movement they will dictate life style and behavior. Tax all energy use and do nothing to increase energy supply.. your obama said so.

You are a moron.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..no surprise. it's the liberal vision of things to come when they get elected. Thru the ecoGreen Slime movement they will dictate life style and behavior. Tax all energy use and do nothing to increase energy supply.. your obama said so.

Hire a new writer.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..no surprise. it's the liberal vision of things to come when they get elected. Thru the ecoGreen Slime movement they will dictate life style and behavior. Tax all energy use and do nothing to increase energy supply.. your obama said so.

And it's about time. I hear one of the items in the manifesto is to forbid acronyms as screen names. Another alternative is to create a new screen name tax with repugs paying twice that of anyone else.

 

[RKDaley]

According to a statement from Chairman Dean and the concention CEO, the banning of fried food story is not true:

The New York Times implies that the Convention has imposed eating restrictions on delegates to the Convention. That is false. Democrats at the Pepsi Center and other official Convention venues can have all the fried goodies they can stomach. Talk of anything to the contrary is just plain silly.

http://www.demconvention.com/nytimes-statement/

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RKDaley
According to a statement from Chairman Dean and the concention CEO, the banning of fried food story is not true:

The New York Times implies that the Convention has imposed eating restrictions on delegates to the Convention. That is false. Democrats at the Pepsi Center and other official Convention venues can have all the fried goodies they can stomach. Talk of anything to the contrary is just plain silly.

http://www.demconvention.com/nytimes-statement/

Flip flop!!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RKDaley
According to a statement from Chairman Dean and the concention CEO, the banning of fried food story is not true:

The New York Times implies that the Convention has imposed eating restrictions on delegates to the Convention. That is false. Democrats at the Pepsi Center and other official Convention venues can have all the fried goodies they can stomach. Talk of anything to the contrary is just plain silly.

http://www.demconvention.com/nytimes-statement/

Eating restrictions != outlawing fried food vendors.

IMO, this statement doesn't mean that fried food vendors will be allowed IN the convention.

Fern

 

[JohnnyGage]

We might add that the committee for the convention wanted to get 'organic cotton, union made fanny packs' and 'organic cotton, union made hats' for the volunteers. The only problem is that they don't exist. The fact they wanted fanny packs should raise questions.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Sometimes, good ideas, like eating healthier, aren't as sexy as big bombs and stuff.

I guess that's one of the differences between the parties.

Yea, Republicans give you the choice to eat healthy if you want. The Democrats force you to eat healthy.

Yet some how people claim that the Republicans are the ones taking away our freedoms?

You're making a fool of yourself by comparing the menu at a Democratic Party event with the illegal wiretapping of the US public at the order of the President.

However, you are providing information on some of the problems with your politics at the same time. Start with the dishonest straw man you use for the Democratic Party.

It unwittingly shows how little you have to attack about when you make such a weak post. Are you now going to say you were kidding?

Craig what is more invasive in your day to day life.

1. The government listening in on phone calls of suspected terrorists.
or
2. The government telling you what you can't eat or what you can't drive or what types of guns you can own or, via the fairness doctrine, what you can listen to on the radio etc.

PJ, you make the same basic mistakes over and over. Let's look at them agian.

One, you are once again dishonestly summarizing the issue. The government listening in on the calls of suspected terrorists does not accurately reflect the issue - that would be handled just fine by the law to use the FISA courts, the law the administration violated, lied about violating, and took a dangerous position about a 'unitary executive' to claim they had the right to violate, like any law or even court decision they want to ignore if they say it's part of his 'commander in chief' actions.

You also dishonestly summarize the fairness doctrine as 'the government telling you what you can and can't listen to and watch' as if it were some big censorship policy. It's not.

Two, you set up this false dichotomy as if you can excuse one wrong, if you can only show that the other side has done a larger one.

The wrong on violating Americans' fourth amendment rights is not affected by the second issue. If you're just wanting a 'which party is worse on this' discussion, fine, but the problem is you tend to equate that to 'the wiretapping is ok'. Why don't you stick to the issue at hand, the democrats' menu and what it means.

Three, let's look at the concerns you raised.

Do you mean how the democrats *actually* limit what I eat (I'd probably benefit if they regulated it more, not that I'm advocating that), or the PJ straw man democrats?

I'm glad the democrats limit 'what I can eat' to keep horses and dogs and endangered species off the free market menu. I'm glad they don't let me buy contaminated foods for the most part. I'm glad they don't let me buy foods created by workers in unsafe conditions for too low of wages (well, they're still low).

I guess you're in favor of those and more since you are against 'the government telling you what you can eat'.

Or did you mean the PJ straw man democrats who will ban snack foods as 'non-essential waste of food', ban steaks as 'inefficient for the environment'? Ya, I'm against them.

Guns, did you mean the democrats who say that neither I nor the gang members the next block over can have saturday night specials? Or hand grenades?

I guess you are in favor of any guns at all being legal for anyone to own, since you are against the government telling you what guns you can own.

Or did you mean the PJ straw man demorats where citizens can't buy a rifle, but only toy guns? Ya, I'm against them.

The government letting me see what it wants - did you mean where they don't allow for copyrighted material to be shown without license, protecting our system for creating such products? Did you mean where they don't allow libel and slander without legal remedies to those hurt? Did you mean where we're not allowed to ask for the president to be assassinated and organize the plot in the media? There aren't many limits.

The fairness doctrine - which a lot of Republicans have voted for, too - does not limit one word of free speech. The way it worked was that, on the rare occassions a viewer felt something was unbalanced, the station had to give the time for some response. As I understand, it typically wasn't even the same amount of time, and there were some protections for frivolous challenges (guess which party I think is the one who would make frivolous challenges most).

No, you're on the side of the media not supportnig democratic values, by allowing the five corporations who own it to dominate the content and shape public opinion - the little guy is not recognized by you. You are happy to see the many examples of the media ignoring important stories when it's in their interest but not the public's. Of course, the system is working fine, which is how the public was so we--informed as to nearly elect George Bush in 2000.

But did you mean the PJ straw man democrats who will censor word by word the content of all tv shows? Ya, I'm against them.

You put up these half baked misleading things that do not stand up to any scrutiny.

Hillary summed up the Democrats best with her "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." line.

As we've talked about before, you again like to misrepresent things.

You present the quote as if from your straw man democrats who are going to come take your television in the name of the treehugging budget. So, you're against taking things away from you on behalf of the common good? Then you are against food safety inspections, medicare, the entire criminal justice system, libraries, any military, or any of the other things the government does for the 'public good', all of which require funds, which come from one place, taking things from you.

Those all fit her quote. But you're trying to distort the quote by saying well you don't mean what she did say, you mean your distortion of it.

She was telling people who are so rabidly anti-tax that they don't want to pay a cent in taxes, while they want all the benefits, the facts of life.

It's like when Roberty Kennedy, running for president, spoke of his plans for anti-poverty programs to a wealthy college audience, and was asked, 'Who s going to pay for this?'

"You will", he answered. He understood the fact that those with more will pay *some* more for the good of society. That's how sane people view the issue, IMO.

(He also put himself in some physical danger speaking to audiences of young communists and telling them they were wrong).

You are not accurately representing her message, as you try to turn it into some radical message as if she had said she was taking all your property.

You can't defend the policies of your party on fiscal responsibility, so you try for these 'debater points', hey you got a quote you can stretch woo hoo.

They want to take away fatty foods because they are bad for you. They want to take away SUVs because they are bad for the environment. They want to take away guns because too many people die via guns. They want to take away your right to listen to whatever radio programs you want because the shows aren't "fair" and don't present a "balanced view"

Yes. They want to make vaccinations mandatory because it's in the public health interest. They want to make food preparer bathroom hand washing the law because it's in the public interest for health and preference. They want to make cars have seat belts, and make you wear them, because the arguments for doing so are so compelling, despite the fact that there are rare exceptions where the seat belt could harm you.

Your distorted summaries aside, you don't even get the basics right, such as that democrats are not calling for 'banning fatty foods' that I've seen. They might want to educate you on them, they might want to incent you to avoid them when the taxpayers are paying for your choice, they might want to ban the worst types (trans fat which are health disasters but profitable), and I say good. Republicans are consistently opposing the improvements Democrts make, and then usually taking them for granted as good ideas.

There were big cries against seat belts and helmets and fluoride in water and much more. You don't hear a lot about that.

The Republicans are listening in on your phone calls while the Democrats are looking over your shoulder all day. Both are wrong, but which act is more invasive?

To say something positive, good for you for at least saying the wiretapping is wrong.

What you don't get Craig, is that we don't want either party telling us what to do or listening in on anything. I don't need an education about what's safe for me or my family from any party or especially from a political party. We forget that we have freedom here and that means freedom to make bad decisions. We get immunizations and wear seat belts and all that. There is enough information out there that tells you that wearing seatbelts is safer--but if there is someone who doesn't want to wear one, heck we need more organ donors. Not nanny state policies that state 'we know what's better for you'.

Secondly, if someone wants to protect themselves with a gun at home they have that right--it's been duly noted by the USSC. Which did not over turn restrictions on gun purchases and the like. If any amendment of the bill of rights is abolished, the rest will follow.

Thirdly the fairness doctrine is a limit on free speech. As it is now it will only address radio stations with conservative talk. TV and print press(which is overwhelmingly to the left--whether anyone wants to admit it or not) will be excluded. It actually more offending that the congressional majority--which has been screaming from the top of it's lungs that their rights have been taken away--as a first act of the new congress is take free speech rights away from the people that disagree with them. And again, freedom of speech is there not for the speech you agree with, but for speech you disagree with.

 

[seemingly random]

asbestos?

---

I detest being forced to wear seat belts. Don't think much of helmet laws either. Seems like a nanny state. But then we all know who's really behind it - insurance companies - couching the argument in caring about people's safety...

 

[OutHouse]

YGPM
Thread has been merged into a pre-existing one on the same topic.

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator



Many caterers are cheering eco-friendly requirements for menus at events hosted by the Denver 2008 Host Committee during the Democratic National Convention, but some see them as a challenge.

A request for catering proposals for events sponsored by the Host Committee asks for no fried foods; no individual plastic containers for liquids; reusable, recyclable or compostable plates; and local or organic food -- or both.

Another request is for food to be in at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white.

One caterer warned that going organic could double prices.

Still, caterers agree that organizers' commitment to going green during the convention is laudable.

also the dems are renting office space at the old Denver post building at 100,000 a month. the space is more than what they need so they filled the vacant space with office rental furniture that cost 50,000 a month...

Oh and dont forget the 15,000 fanny packs for volunteers. But they had to be made of organic cotton. By unionized labor in the USA. Problem is NONE ARE MADE IN THE USA.

They also want to put up big screen TV's in all the homeless shelters to broadcast the convention...

wow, just wow.

:roll:

 

[nageov3t]

donate money to Obama... the DNC needs prettier offices?

 

[RichardE]

So the problem is?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: RichardE
So the problem is?

Over specification to create a warm fuzzy?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: RichardE
So the problem is?

Over specification to create a warm fuzzy?

Ah gotcha. So there is not really a problem at all, just more reaching to try to bring into the spotlight a non-issue since the right doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[midway]

Don't see a problem with any of this

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: midway
Don't see a problem with any of this

Put it into context of obamas famous "we can't run our thermostats comfortably and drive cars" perspective and it shows just how bad the DNC is. They're forcing extreme behaviors that lack common sense.

It shows just how at it's core the party actually believes this crap.