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

[taxwonk]

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.

Or, just consider the possibility that it provides an incentive for these companies to leave South Dakota. Such an exodus would create considerable unemployment, a massive drop int he tax base, and other hardships for both the government and the people who elected it. Wouldn't the hardships create an incentive to elect officials who would change the State's laws and policies.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If they did, would you be equally supportive of allowing states to opt out of those standards and enact lower ones?

Yes -- I think that the federal government should set minimum standards, but should not take the most restrictive standards from any state and impose them nationwide.

Now, you want to answer my question?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I wasn't arguing with you. It was a statement for my fellow Republicans, that I thought you wanted me to proffer.

Ah. My bad. I thought you were just raising me when you really had nothing in your hand. You can understand the source of my mistake.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
With speed limits, I think you're right. (OTOH, the federal government is only involved because its sending funds to the states, and wasn't the 55 mph limit only for interstates -- federal highways?)

With food safety, maybe it tells you something that the states have only wanted to get into the act recently.

Actually it is all highways. The deal was these states didn't get the funds unless the maximum speed limit on everything was 55. Of course that law was dropped.

It is the evil insurance lobby that keeps the speed limits down. According to their in house stats the lower the speed limit the less death and injury and therefore the less cost to them.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Or, just consider the possibility that it provides an incentive for these companies to leave South Dakota. Such an exodus would create considerable unemployment, a massive drop int he tax base, and other hardships for both the government and the people who elected it. Wouldn't the hardships create an incentive to elect officials who would change the State's laws and policies.

I belive you need to target the guilty directly. You shouldn't attack innocent people to get at the guilty. It is like murdering innocent American civilians to get at the US government. I also think the direct route is more effecitve, in addition to being more ethical.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Ah. My bad. I thought you were just raising me when you really had nothing in your hand. You can understand the source of my mistake.

You are confusing me with Less. When am I going to get the chance to get my money back from my brother?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

Now, you want to answer my question?

Sure. Which one?

If it's the first amendment one, about minimum speech:

1) Constitutional limitations are different from statutory/regulatory limitations. We're talking policy decisions to be made, not ones we've committed to continuing in the form of a constitution. I grant that it is permissible under our federalist system to have a federal law that states can make more strict. And you would have to grant it is permissible to have a federal law tht states cannot make more strict. All I've posited that if you have both of those possible policy outcomes, why not the third--federal laws that states can make less strict?

2) When enacted, the first amendment did not apply to the states. It was subsequently incorporated, based on further constitutional amendment. If you can get a constitutional amendment through that specifies that the federal government may enact minimum, but not maximum health and safety standards, go ahead.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I belive you need to target the guilty directly. You shouldn't attack innocent people to get at the guilty. It is like murdering innocent American civilians to get at the US government. I also think the direct route is more effecitve, in addition to being more ethical.

But a boycott does punish the guilty. The people of South Dakota elected the yahoos who enacted the abortion bill and the yahoo king of a governor who signed the bill. They should be made to suffer for their evil.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure. Which one?

The one about whether you would view this federal action so favorably if the feds were taking the strictest state food safety standards and applying them nationwide.

[Sidd Finch]

Looks like the Bush admin was as competent in determining who to put in Gitmo as in, well, everything.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060304/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Untrammeled executive power is good! There is never any potential for mistake or abuse! "Checks and balances" is so 1700s!

Glad I lost that Casio watch....

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The one about whether you would view this federal action so favorably if the feds were taking the strictest state food safety standards and applying them nationwide.

I don't recall saying I viewed it favorably other than on the basis that it created nationwide unformity in labeling, which surely reduces the costs of national food distributors. That benefit would exist regardles of the level of standard applied.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
But a boycott does punish the guilty. The people of South Dakota elected the yahoos who enacted the abortion bill and the yahoo king of a governor who signed the bill. They should be made to suffer for their evil.

Not all the people voted for these yahoos. Many are as responsible for these officials as you are responsible for Tom Delay and George W. Bush. And the companys we were talking about just have their headquarters there. They have people working for them all over the country. You need to go directly after the politicians.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
Not all the people voted for these yahoos. Many are as responsible for these officials as you are responsible for Tom Delay and George W. Bush. And the companys we were talking about just have their headquarters there. They have people working for them all over the country. You need to go directly after the politicians.

I disagree. The only way to get decent folks elected is to kick moderates in the ass and force them to get off their asses and go to the polls and outvote these virulent minorities of white trash vermin who presently wag the dog.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't recall saying I viewed it favorably other than on the basis that it created nationwide unformity in labeling, which surely reduces the costs of national food distributors. That benefit would exist regardles of the level of standard applied.

isn't the food industry's reaction already to use a uniform label? I think they tend to lump all warnings on all packaging- assuming 1) no one reads it- so big deal and 2) it's cheaper to have one label, not so much for printing but for handling and ditribution.

It's like the bottle deposit notices. The best thing would be that only deposit states have a notice on their bevarage containers, but all containers in all states have the same label. Results in the Kramers and Newmans of the world bringing in out-of-state empties.*



*I worked in a beer store in college- out of state returns are a real problem.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Don't know if this has come up already, but now anyone who is pro-choice is now supposed to boycott Citibank, Gateway, Iams pet food and South Dakota tourism, all because of the recent SD bill. I don't buy Iams, don't have a Gateway computer, and am not planning a trip to Mount Rushmore, so I'm ok there, but I do bank at Citibank because it's private banking through my firm, and would be a pain in the ass to switch, and I probably would not get the same deal. Sometimes these boycotts do require some thought - especially if you wonder whether it will really have any effect.

Kinda late to the party on this one, but why is IAMS on this list? IAMS is based in Dayton, Ohio and the company itself was sold to P&G (Cincinnati) in 1999. What is the South Dakota connection?

aV