Regulations Create Jobs, Too

[BoberFett]

Well now, was that called for?? Your mental issues are coming right to the forefront now aren't they...

You came out of nowhere and accused me of being some kind of wacko fundamentalist. What did you expect you horse-cum-gargling piece of shit?

 

[tydas]

You came out of nowhere and accused me of being some kind of wacko fundamentalist. What did you expect you horse-cum-gargling piece of shit?

Your funny...was just making a point about who the GOP is allied with...also, when the new lightbulb regs go thru I'll be sure to report both you and Biff as I'm sure you won't comply

 

[BoberFett]

Your funny...was just making a point about who the GOP is allied with...also, when the new lightbulb regs go thru I'll be sure to report both you and Biff as I'm sure you won't comply

I'm sure you will.

 

[First]

That is a bullshit answer and you know it.

Nope it's common sense and it gets things done. Hold onto BS ideology and you lose.

So what you are basically saying is because some consumeables consumption is so wide spread we cant possibly contain them we shouldnt. But since these milk producers are easier to crush because they arent as popular we should. Gee bully much?

lol, yes I'm a bully I'm sorry.

 

[Genx87]

Nope it's common sense and it gets things done. Hold onto BS ideology and you lose.

Gets what done? Saving people from consuming a product they enthusiastically bought? Congrats on a job well done lol

What BS ideology do I believe in? One of choosing what I want to consume? I know, what a terrible thing to believe in. I should leave that up to authoritarian's like you to decide.

lol, yes I'm a bully I'm sorry.

What do you define somebody willing to pick on somebody that cant fight back? You admitted you would only regulate things that cant realistically fight back. Drugs, alcohol, those are too big and tough. But the farmer down the street selling unpastuerized milk? You can beat him so regulate away!

 

[First]

Gets what done? Saving people from consuming a product they enthusiastically bought? Congrats on a job well done lol

Sorry but not that many people want unpasteurized milk. Alcohol is a different story with a different history, effect and context. I feel bad that you don't quite grasp this simple concept.

What BS ideology do I believe in? One of choosing what I want to consume? I know, what a terrible thing to believe in. I should leave that up to authoritarian's like you to decide.

No, I'm talking about blind, one-size-fits-all ideology where people compare unpasteurized milk to alcohol and expect to be taken seriously despite the entirely different practical applications of enforcing one but not the other.

What do you define somebody willing to pick on somebody that cant fight back? You admitted you would only regulate things that cant realistically fight back. Drugs, alcohol, those are too big and tough. But the farmer down the street selling unpastuerized milk? You can beat him so regulate away!

I'm sorry you don't understand that something already baked into the cake (drugs, alcohol) are unique phenomenons whose demand hasn't changed for centuries. A vast majority of the population has knows for centuries about the harms of drugs and alcohol (save for cigarettes to some degree). Pasteurized milk not so much. It's really that simple; protecting people because the U.S. puts a big premium on lives, even despite high monetary costs. This farmer had every opportunity to comply according to the articles on the subject.

I will speak slower in the future if this is confusing. Let me know.

 

[BoberFett]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyD9ftpzKj0

Democrats are such a frightened bunch. They're so concerned about living safely that they don't know how to live well.

 

[tydas]

Its obvious the only solution is a re-education camp for you...now we can start using all those body bags that FEMA has been stock piling...

 

[Genx87]

Sorry but not that many people want unpasteurized milk. Alcohol is a different story with a different history, effect and context. I feel bad that you don't quite grasp this simple concept.

Exactly, You will gladly pick on what cant defend itself.

No, I'm talking about blind, one-size-fits-all ideology where people compare unpasteurized milk to alcohol and expect to be taken seriously despite the entirely different practical applications of enforcing one but not the other.

Do you want regulated consumption or not? Your rationale for regulating unpastuerized milk out of the market was a health concern. Alcohol is also detrimental on many levels. I am simply asking if you are consistent in your beliefs. Clearly you arent.

I'm sorry you don't understand that something already baked into the cake (drugs, alcohol) are unique phenomenons whose demand hasn't changed for centuries. A vast majority of the population has knows for centuries about the harms of drugs and alcohol (save for cigarettes to some degree). Pasteurized milk not so much. It's really that simple; protecting people because the U.S. puts a big premium on lives, even despite high monetary costs. This farmer had every opportunity to comply according to the articles on the subject.

I will speak slower in the future if this is confusing. Let me know.

I know it is a liberal thing to be condescending. But please dont cast stones in your house. Your reply is basically backing up my entire point about you being a bully with what you want regulated. Then you end it with the above doozy.

Drugs and alcohol consumed for centuries? What about unpastuerized milk? How many centuries was that consumed before the federal govt enacted regulation to protect us from ourselves?

I know simple things like personal freedom confuse and scare people like you. If I want to take a risk with unpastuerized milk. Why the hell do you do care?

 

[First]

Exactly, You will gladly pick on what cant defend itself.

Nope, that's not it, at all. I'll say it slowly, reword it and even bold it for you; the costs of regulating a high-demand product like alcohol are far higher monetarily and legislatively that it becomes impractical to do. The reasons for this are alcohol's unique history in the U.S. (Prohibition), its well known negative effects (self-explanatory) and its ease of distribution.

Do you want regulated consumption or not? Your rationale for regulating unpastuerized milk out of the market was a health concern. Alcohol is also detrimental on many levels. I am simply asking if you are consistent in your beliefs. Clearly you arent.

The consistency is actually a misnomer since, as explained above (I hope the bolding helped), you're comparing apples to oranges. If they were comparable their histories, circumstances, laws and hell even chemistry should at least be vaguely similar. Any half-wit knows they're not, which is why I chuckle at the "But drugs!" comparisons.

I know it is a liberal thing to be condescending.

Lol, conservatives are so mind-numbingly predictable.

But please dont cast stones in your house. Your reply is basically backing up my entire point about you being a bully with what you want regulated. Then you end it with the above doozy.

Drugs and alcohol consumed for centuries? What about unpastuerized milk? How many centuries was that consumed before the federal govt enacted regulation to protect us from ourselves?

I know simple things like personal freedom confuse people like you. If I want to take a risk with unpastuerized milk. Why the hell do you do care?

One person taking a risk with unpasteurized milk isn't the issue, and if you can't see this stop talking right now, because it's embarrassing to watch somehow miss the point on an issue that isn't particularly complicated. The issue is distribution of unpasteurized milk, distribution across state lines and thwarting currently existing law and proposed FDA workarounds because of (what I can only imagine) is another example of "But my principles dictate that I should apply one ideological solution to every issue of freeeeeeddddoooom!".

No, I'm sorry, life isn't that dramatic.

 

[BoberFett]

Its obvious the only solution is a re-education camp for you...now we can start using all those body bags that FEMA has been stock piling...

I'm sure you'd like that. For the good of society, of course.

 

[BoberFett]

First can't seem to grasp that it's a fundamental difference of opinion, and as a die-hard partisan he's programmed to believe that his way is the only way.

There's really no discussion to be had.

 

[JSt0rm]

One person taking a risk with unpasteurized milk isn't the issue, and if you can't see this stop talking right now, because it's embarrassing to watch somehow miss the point on an issue that isn't particularly complicated. The issue is distribution of unpasteurized milk, distribution across state lines and thwarting currently existing law and proposed FDA workarounds because of (what I can only imagine) is another example of "But my principles dictate that I should apply one ideological solution to every issue of freeeeeeddddoooom!".

No, I'm sorry, life isn't that dramatic.

They wont see the real issues because it goes against their fundamental beliefs. I say just let it lay. They have been told why and yet they still seem to fight it as though they have no rights under the oppression of the evil government. Its what gets them out of bed everyday.

 

[BoberFett]

They wont see the real issues because it goes against their fundamental beliefs. I say just let it lay. They have been told why and yet they still seem to fight it as though they have no rights under the oppression of the evil government. Its what gets them out of bed everyday.

And you and First don't see the issues others have with nanny-state levels of control because your belief systems see that as a good thing. It's been explained to you that people don't like the government micro-managing their lives, but you still fight it because your belief system has you believing that you're superior to the common man and can run his or her life better than he or she can. You believe in the infallibility of government. Your entire ego is tied up in your ability to tell others via government how to live their lives.

 

[JSt0rm]

And you and First don't see the issues others have with nanny-state levels of control because your belief systems see that as a good thing..

i showed how ecoli can become a human to human disease. You yourself said you dont have the right to put yourself at risk of something that could affect another person. I dont understand what there is to fight about. The CDC and FDA are working to make sure the majority of people are safe.

My "belief system" is backed by hard science yours is backed by ideology. You refuse to see that distinction. i can say it right to your face and you refuse to see it.

Its like the church of trickle down. Some people refuse to see the evidence presented.

 

[First]

I just don't want stupid people doing stupid things like harming other people with their stupid behavior. If that means more gov't control over their lives then so be it. If the gov't gets out of hand it should be corrected. To not address it whatsoever in the name of anti "nanny-state" dogma via belief that everything ultimately is personal responsibility before all else, you'll just end up hurting other people.

I mean I get the idea of needing the choice to make your own mistakes. I get why it's important to have that right. But when you're stupid, ignorant and/or delusional, the "nanny state" is the only thing that's going to stop you from hurting people if you don't have family or .gov stepping in. That shouldn't controversial but it is because we have such a individualistic society. Which is great....up to a certain point. That point is hurting others with your stupidity. Americans hate being called stupid to their face though, it requires that they look at themselves in the mirror, and sometimes that isn't pretty.

 

[BoberFett]

You guys are free to believe what you want to believe. I'm not in the business of telling people what to think, that's your job as Democrats.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Regulations Create Jobs, Too

True.....government jobs paid by the taxpayer

 

[JSt0rm]

You guys are free to believe what you want to believe. I'm not in the business of telling people what to think, that's your job as Democrats.

Again. I believe what the science says. If science said there was no e. coli in raw milk and it made you live to 150 then I would go with the hard science. Thats not what the hard science says though. I would much rather be in a position to change my mind based on new evidence then be stuck with the "regulation is bad" ideology.

As a living thinking being why in the world would you want to box yourself in like that?

 

[monovillage]

What you know full well storm, in fact you supplied a link, is that many, many foods may contain harmful bacteria. Yet you and the other guy focus on raw milk and the expensive and futile enforcement of regulations against it.

2011 United States listeriosis outbreak from cantaloupes from Colorado in July, August and September. 30 people have died.[3] It is the second deadliest recorded U.S. outbreak in terms of the number of deaths since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began tracking outbreaks in the 1970s.[4][2]
2011 United States salmonellosis outbreak in Del Monte cantaloupe infected with Salmonella Panama from Guatemala.[5]
Andrew Williamson Fresh Produce is voluntarily recalling one lot of organic grape tomatoes sold under the Limited Edition and Fresh & Easy labels due to a possible health risk from Salmonella.
Emporia, Kansas based Tyson Fresh Meats (Tyson Foods) announces it is recalling 131,300 pounds of ground beef products due to possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination.
Publix Super Markets is issuing a voluntary recall for spinach dip because it may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes.
Roundy's Super Markets Inc., a Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based company with an establishment in Kenosha, Wisconsin, is recalling 360 pounds of breaded chicken breast products, that should have been fully cooked, because they may have been undercooked.

E. coli in strawberry from Newberg, Oregon killed one person on August 8, 2011.[5] The Oregon Health Authority announced[6] that they had linked at least 10 E. coli infections to a strawberry farm in Newberg, Oregon. Four patients had been hospitalized and an elderly woman died from kidney failure associated with her E coli illness. The strawberries were sold to buyers, who resold them at roadside stands and farmer's markets. [7]

One dead in California from Samonella and 76 more people sickened in 26 states. On August 3, 2011, Cargill recalled 36,000,000 pounds of fresh and frozen ground turkey products produced at the company's Springdale, Arkansas, facility from February 20, 2011, through August 2, 2011, due to possible contamination from Salmonella Heidelberg.[8][5][9]

In March and April 2011, Jennie-O recalled almost 55,000 pounds of turkey burgers because drug-resistant salmonella was found in its products.[10]

In June 2011, Nearly 3,000 cases of Dole Food Company salad bags are being recalled after a random test found the bacteria listeria in a bag of the salad. Dole is voluntarily recalling bags of its Italian blend salad and Kroger Fresh Selections Italian Style Blend, both with the use-by date of June 19, 2011. The salads were distributed in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Wisconsin, as well as parts of Canada. Dole says if you still have the salad bags in your fridge, you should throw them away. So far, no illnesses have been reported. [11]

Contaminated papaya appears to be the cause of an outbreak of Salmonella food poisoning (salmonellosis) in 23 states, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers. The FDA says papayas imported from Mexico and distributed by Agromod Produce Inc. of McAllen, Texas, is likely the source of 97 cases of Salmonella Agona. To date, 10 people have been hospitalized but there have been no reported deaths. As a result, all papayas sold before Saturday, July 23, 2011, have been voluntarily recalled by Agromod. The cases were reported between January 1 and July 18 in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio. Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. While ages ranged from 1 year to 91 years old, the average age of those stricken is 20. More than half of the cases are women. Texas had the most cases with 25 people falling ill. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Salmonella agona is one of about 2,000 strains of salmonella. Symptoms usually show up 12 to 72 hours after infection and can last up to seven days. Approximately 40,000 cases of salmonellosis, taking into account all cases from all pathologic strains, are reported each year in the U.S. ............"

That's just from 2011. I have no problem with the FDA setting up intelligent regulations, but this total ban that is backed by large numbers of armed enforcers is a waste of time and money. You'd admit it, but you like screwing with other posters too much.

 

[micrometers]

Coal power plants output too much pollution, and after being grandfathered in to the clean air act, were put in use for far too long.

Yes, basically the point of the article is that lawmakers really should focus on what's right and not worry so much about how the free market will adjust. I like it.

 

[JSt0rm]

What you know full well storm, in fact you supplied a link, is that many, many foods may contain harmful bacteria. Yet you and the other guy focus on raw milk and the expensive and futile enforcement of regulations against it.



That's just from 2011. I have no problem with the FDA setting up intelligent regulations, but this total ban that is backed by large numbers of armed enforcers is a waste of time and money. You'd admit it, but you like screwing with other posters too much.

All that is very interesting but despite all of your links and sources you still havent proven that raw milk isnt dangerous. You havent proven anything except your own bias against real science.

Myth #1. Raw milk has been consumed for thousands of years without a problem.


This myth reflects a lack of understanding about the historical impact of infectious diseases transmitted by raw milk for centuries, especially tuberculosis, brucellosis (undulant fever), and scarlet fever (1-5). Raw milk has caused numerous deaths of infants throughout history. Pasteurization was developed to prevent these well-documented illnesses and deaths from contaminated raw milk. In developed countries, the use of pasteurization has been directly correlated to reduced infant mortality (6). In developing countries today, from India to Africa, raw milk is routinely boiled before being fed to babies, children, and other family members to protect them from deadly milk-borne infections.

 

[monovillage]

All that is very interesting but despite all of your links and sources you still havent proven that raw milk isnt dangerous. You havent proven anything except your own bias against real science.

Myth #1. Raw milk has been consumed for thousands of years without a problem.


This myth reflects a lack of understanding about the historical impact of infectious diseases transmitted by raw milk for centuries, especially tuberculosis, brucellosis (undulant fever), and scarlet fever (1-5). Raw milk has caused numerous deaths of infants throughout history. Pasteurization was developed to prevent these well-documented illnesses and deaths from contaminated raw milk. In developed countries, the use of pasteurization has been directly correlated to reduced infant mortality (6). In developing countries today, from India to Africa, raw milk is routinely boiled before being fed to babies, children, and other family members to protect them from deadly milk-borne infections.

You're a lying sack of shit jstorm. Show me one place where I said that raw milk is without risks or that it has been consumed without problems. Show me where I ever said such a thing. It's fun sparring with you here in the forums, but when you blatantly lie about what i've said it loses the humor.

 

[BoberFett]

We should probably ban breastfeeding.

 

[JSt0rm]

You're a lying sack of shit jstorm. Show me one place where I said that raw milk is without risks or that it has been consumed without problems. Show me where I ever said such a thing. It's fun sparring with you here in the forums, but when you blatantly lie about what i've said it loses the humor.

What you are trying to do is show that raw milk isnt so bad because "look at all this other stuff".

What I'm saying is showing proof that all these other things can be dangerous doesnt change my point one bit.

Its a normal tactic for you righties.