The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Replaced_Texan]

Speaking of crazy old men, a 95 year old is running for Congress here in Texas. He's apparently pissed off about the redistricting.

A Democrat whose platform is essentially to work to defeat all Republicans, Smith is adamant about protecting abortion rights.

Reason number 80182375610 I love being from Texas.

ETA: In the comments from the first link:

I’m in this man’s district, and he earned my vote when made the claim that he’s the only candidate who voted against Hoover. You don’t find that kind of political hero often…GO SID GO!!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Never mind Upton Sinclair -- let's not have food safety regulations at all. If that's what Congress decides, the food must be safe.

No, it's that your argument is internally inconsistent. On the one hand you don't trust Congress to set standards that are strong enough. Yet you want them to have authority to set minimum standards. If Congress can reach a judgment as to what is a minimum standard, why can't it reach a judgment as to what is the right standard. And if it can't be trusted to reach the latter, why should it be entrusted even to set the former?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Speaking of crazy old men, a95 year old is running for Congress here in Texas. He's apparently pissed off about the redistricting.



Reason number 80182375610 I love being from Texas.

Nice comment -- makes me think he's related to Sebby: "Notice that both of his hands have permanently atrophied into holders for highball glasses. "

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That's pretty much how it was from, say, 1840 (or whenever the Industrial Revolution kicked in here) until about 1930 or so. We didn't much like the results. Thus, 50+ years of your dreaded attempted "social fixes", some of which work better than others.

Maybe in one sense it makes people "weak" -- just as I think enhanced technology has led to a proliferation of people with weak eyesight. So, should we kill everyone who needs glasses, or just sell hunting permits?

S_A_M

2. Did you ever read the Jungle? The FDA is good, good thing. You get rid of meat inspectors, I become a vegetarian.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
2. Did you ever read the Jungle? The FDA is good, good thing. You get rid of meat inspectors, I become a vegetarian.

But should the FDA prevent the states from imposing stricter regulations?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, it's that your argument is internally inconsistent. On the one hand you don't trust Congress to set standards that are strong enough. Yet you want them to have authority to set minimum standards. If Congress can reach a judgment as to what is a minimum standard, why can't it reach a judgment as to what is the right standard. And if it can't be trusted to reach the latter, why should it be entrusted even to set the former?

Right. And if the federal Constitution can set a minimum standard for free speech, shouldn't it also tell the states that they can't provide greater protection for speech?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
I'm not really sure that I am boycotting Iams and Gateway simply because I don't happen to use their products. That said, I think the reason pro-choice people are being asked to boycott these companies is because they pay some revenue to the state and a decline in their revenue may hurt the state. I'm not sure if it's "really stupid" or not. I agree it has a remote chance of actually doing anything. Why do you think it's "really stupid" other than the remoteness argument?

Why is the first letter of abortion capitalized?

You go after the people responsible not the innocent bystandards. Those companies had nothing to do with what the legislature did. If you don't like what the governor did send money to his opponent (or the legislators opponents) in the next election, but boycotting people or business just because they happen to be in South Dakota does nothing and punishes the innocent.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

All us Crackberry addicts can breathe easy again. NTP gets $612M.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
But should the FDA prevent the states from imposing stricter regulations?

No.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
You go after the people responsible not the innocent bystandards. Those companies had nothing to do with what the legislature did. If you don't like what the governor did send money to his opponent (or the legislators opponents) in the next election, but boycotting people or business just because they happen to be in South Dakota does nothing and punishes the innocent.

slave will tell you the innocent can vote with their feet.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, it's that your argument is internally inconsistent. On the one hand you don't trust Congress to set standards that are strong enough. Yet you want them to have authority to set minimum standards. If Congress can reach a judgment as to what is a minimum standard, why can't it reach a judgment as to what is the right standard. And if it can't be trusted to reach the latter, why should it be entrusted even to set the former?

Maybe there is no right standard. I think there are minimum standards that everyone -- well, all consumers -- should want. In some areas -- say, with fish in California -- perhaps the consumers want even safer food, and are willing to pay the price. So be it. If the federal government is not the captive of corporate interests,* then there's every reason to think that the federal government will get it pretty nearly right, and that you won't see these issues in state legislatures. And you should trust Congress to set minimums because something is better than nothing at all. See Upton Sinclair. Millions of Japanese can't be wrong, can they?

* I know, but please suspend your disbelief until the end of this post.

eta: Sidd has my proxy.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
You go after the people responsible not the innocent bystandards. Those companies had nothing to do with what the legislature did. If you don't like what the governor did send money to his opponent (or the legislators opponents) in the next election, but boycotting people or business just because they happen to be in South Dakota does nothing and punishes the innocent.

Pfft. Collateral damage.

The idea is to pressure them into telling SD's gov't that their business is being harmed because of their dumbass actions, and they will take their tax payments off somewhere else if the SD gov't continues it's horrible ways, TYVM.

I think it's stupid, but most things like that are stupid. Embargoes against countries we don't like harm the inhabitants more directly than they harm the gov't, but the gov't ultimately wants to keep the inhabitants happy so they don't revolt, so we do it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe there is no right standard. I think there are minimum standards that everyone -- well, all consumers -- should want. In some areas -- say, with fish in California -- perhaps the consumers want even safer food, and are willing to pay the price. So be it. If the federal government is not the captive of corporate interests,* then there's every reason to think that the federal government will get it pretty nearly right, and that you won't see these issues in state legislatures. And you should trust Congress to set minimums because something is better than nothing at all. See Upton Sinclair. Millions of Japanese can't be wrong, can they?

* I know, but please suspend your disbelief until the end of this post.

eta: Sidd has my proxy.

I can't believe you and Sidd are getting into this argument. Of course states can impose stricter regulations, and of course they cannot soften federal regulations. Counties can make stricter regulations, and so can cities. Any other system just wouldn't be practical. New Mexico (or Lincoln County) can't have stricter beef inspection laws because their heat makes beef spoil quicker? Now you have dragged me into it.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Spanky
2. Did you ever read the Jungle? The FDA is good, good thing. You get rid of meat inspectors, I become a vegetarian.

Do you mean the USDA?

It is, FWIW, quite an incredibly untrustworthy department when it comes to food safety/nutritional information.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I can't believe you and Sidd are getting into this argument. Of course states can impose stricter regulations, and of course they cannot soften federal regulations. Counties can make stricter regulations, and so can cities. Any other system just wouldn't be practical. New Mexico (or Lincoln County) can't have stricter beef inspection laws because their heat makes beef spoil quicker? Now you have dragged me into it.

Since we are all agreeing with each other (you, me, and Ty -- quite the trifecta), it's not really an argument.

You should argue with Burger. He's one of your co-partisans, not mine.