Hey wierdo.......What do you think of Prop 37?

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21391702/proposition-37-california-high-stakes-food-fight

You were mentioning how the government should and is responsible for informing people about their choices.

What do you think of this specific Proposition?

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_37,_Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_(2012)

The federal Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for protecting public health by assuring the safety of the nation's food supply, takes the position that genetically engineered food doesn't present greater safety concerns than food that isn't. Still, some consumers remain unconvinced.

Is it going too far? Still not far enough? Or is there such a thing as going too far about knowing exactly what is inside your food?

Just curious what your personal stance is on this California Proposition.

My first instinct is that I'm going to vote against it, but won't care at all if it passes. It might even be a good thing. My personal opinion is that people are mixing facts and superstition, like where they mandate that genetically modified food can't be labeled natural. Even though we've been genetically modifying food through selective breeding for centuries. And so they're trying to invoke spooky Frankenstein emotional associations with GMOs and make them carry a big ol' GMO warning label.

I think this is the upside of the California ballot system though. If that many Californians think it's important, they should absolutely have the right to walk into a grocery store and know what they're buying. I'll still eat GMOs, and if people want to tell me that's what I'm eating, that's fine with me.

Originally posted by: the wierdo
My first instinct is that I'm going to vote against it, but won't care at all if it passes. It might even be a good thing. My personal opinion is that people are mixing facts and superstition, like where they mandate that genetically modified food can't be labeled natural. Even though we've been genetically modifying food through selective breeding for centuries. And so they're trying to invoke spooky Frankenstein emotional associations with GMOs and make them carry a big ol' GMO warning label.

I think this is the upside of the California ballot system though. If that many Californians think it's important, they should absolutely have the right to walk into a grocery store and know what they're buying. I'll still eat GMOs, and if people want to tell me that's what I'm eating, that's fine with me.

Can't say I really feel much different........

While I think it is universally dumb, like the SF rule to put FDA warning stickers on cell phones based on their electromagnetic emissions, if people want it bad enough I guess they can have it....

While it might force unit costs on manufacturing up.....that cost will be put back onto the California consumers anyways. So they will be paying for something they want (or most of them want) so how is that a bad thing?

Even if it would be far cheaper and less burdensome for others to just research shit for themselves (heaven forbid).

I was looking over the list of Propositions this November election cycle and there are some real beauties on there.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2012_ballot_propositions#On_the_ballot

About a dozen tax raises and half a dozen batches of other wingbat bullshit........

Should be a funny turn out.

Not like you can really mess up this state anymore than it already is. So it should be fun to see if they can fleece the rich (or richer than 250k) and multistate corporations for more money........it will also be fun to see how/if that backfires on them.

label that shit with big bold letters.

and what happens in Cali, will happen to the rest of the nation. it will cost food makers too much money to have a separate cali only label and the entire nation will now have a choice to buy with their dollars, gmo shit food or natural food.

let the all mighty consumer and the exchange of money be the deciding factor here, nation wide.

fuck Monsatan.

Originally posted by: samUwell
label that shit with big bold letters.

and what happens in Cali, will happen to the rest of the nation. it will cost food makers too much money to have a separate cali only label and the entire nation will now have a choice to buy with their dollars, gmo shit food or natural food.

let the all mighty consumer and the exchange of money be the deciding factor here, nation wide.

fuck Monsatan.

statist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: Pixel
statist

im not forcing you to buy said products nor am i trying to get said products banned.

if you want to eat that shit and die from it, more power to you.

Originally posted by: samUwell

Originally posted by: Pixel
statist

im not forcing you to buy said products nor am i trying to get said products banned.

if you want to eat that shit and die from it, more power to you.

didn't say you were. however you are supporting government mandated regulation of labeling of foods by private enterprise instead of letting the market self-regulate itself. something anybody even opens their mouth to agree with as a sensible regulation and you consider them a statist.

so now not only are you a statist, but also a hypocrite.

statist.


Post edited by Pixel at 9/4/2012 12:51:52 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: samUwell

Originally posted by: Pixel
statist

im not forcing you to buy said products nor am i trying to get said products banned.

if you want to eat that shit and die from it, more power to you.

didn't say you were. however you are supporting government mandated regulation of labeling of foods by private enterprise instead of letting the market self-regulate itself. something anybody even opens their mouth to agree with as a sensible regulation and you consider them a statist.

so now not only are you a statist, but also a hypocrite.

statist.

Assumption #1: Sam subscribes to zero government
Assumption #2: Sam is an absolute anarchist
Assumption #3: Because same is an anarchist, he believes in zero government, therefore anything that the government possibly does must be perceived to be bad.

Unfortunately, Sam, to the best of my knowledge, believes in none of those things. Therefore you ASS-U-ME too much.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: samUwell

Originally posted by: Pixel
statist

im not forcing you to buy said products nor am i trying to get said products banned.

if you want to eat that shit and die from it, more power to you.

didn't say you were. however you are supporting government mandated regulation of labeling of foods by private enterprise instead of letting the market self-regulate itself. something anybody even opens their mouth to agree with as a sensible regulation and you consider them a statist.

so now not only are you a statist, but also a hypocrite.

statist.

Assumption #1: Sam subscribes to zero government
Assumption #2: Sam is an absolute anarchist
Assumption #3: Because same is an anarchist, he believes in zero government, therefore anything that the government possibly does must be perceived to be bad.

Unfortunately, Sam, to the best of my knowledge, believes in none of those things. Therefore you ASS-U-ME too much.

i made zero assumptions. unlike sam, who thinks everybody here that supports any government involvement in private industry is a central-planning statist because he can't read very well, i do read people's posts.

when anybody else might say making private industry adhere to certain standards, like say labeling food products for anything, he would yell statist. unless, of course, he agrees with it as it turns out, like in this case.

which not only makes him a closet statist, but you defending one.

two statists masquerading as libertarians. just so fucking sad man. makes me want to cry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Yawn.......still looking for that quote of me saying China is somehow the epitome of Capitalism.

You make shit up all the time. You make up almost everything you say in here. You also substantiate nothing.

So excuse me if I take your further unwarranted criticism as another grain of salt.

I'm ok with some government too.......especially in regards to courts. Does that somehow make me a statist too?

We advocate for far far reduced government. Not zero government. You are the only one calling us out for being vigilante Anarchists in here.

Sam is fully open to the idea of basic information guidelines, as DRF was to minimum worker safety guidelines. They, unlike you, would certainly entertain the idea that both of those could be excessive and that another (perhaps market mechanism based) concept could be implemented instead.

You, on the other hand, are the one crying like chicken little that without massive government oversight, on everything, the sky would fall and we would instantly devolve into Somalia or Bangladesh.

And I have quotes to back up my absurdity accusations.

Originally posted by: pixel
all the right-wingers on here would rather us look like the libertarian environmental disaster that is currently bangladesh - where no rules have created an ecological disaster and toxic dump where bangladeshis are killed while they work on breaking down old toxic ships.

Post edited by Mockery at 9/4/2012 1:21:13 AM

i never even said if i was going to vote for it or not.

all i said was that it should be in big bold letters and what happens here, happens to the rest of the nation.

i believe in the courts, laws, military and sewer systems all run by the govt. does that also make me a statist?

to believe in any function of the govt is now considered a statist to you?

and when have i ever promoted Anarchy? i have said numerous times on here for the past 10 years that i believe in a very small govt.


besides, if this law passes, a judge will over turn it. and if he does, then the tobacco companies can get their warning labels removed too. something i agree that should be removed.

show whats in the product and let the consumer make the final choice.

no need for any warnings or not. its up to the consumer to make the choice to use/consume said product.

Originally posted by: Pixel
i made zero assumptions. unlike sam, who thinks everybody here that supports any government involvement in private industry is a central-planning statist because he can't read very well, i do read people's posts.

prove it.

or, are you basing this on my opinion of the govt forcing a bar owner to deny (ban) smoking in their establishment for the protection of other customers? i dont know where you are getting your ideas from.

jesus christ puddn, the freedom monster is in your cereal and after RP gets elected, you will be living in Somalia.

When only tyranny can protect you from the chaos of anarchy.

When you want to be ultra safe only a six by six foot padded cell, in extreme solitary confinement, with a tight fitting straight jacket will do.

When only excessive new government can protect you from the vices of oppressive old government.

Poor poor Pixel. His cure is his cancer. His salvation is his demise. No wonder he is so oblivious to the absurdity of his argument.
Post edited by Mockery at 9/4/2012 1:41:02 AM

the interesting thing is - the past few years, i have become more and more anti-corporate than ever before. this began after watching the govt bail out corporation after corporation and then, the banks.

i have been defending these entities for as long as i can remember and for the past few decades, our courts, instead of defending we the people, defend the corporate interest instead.

we no longer have a capitalist system and havent for a while. we are in a corporate system and standing up against them, getting a portion of the govt that i have always said i believe in, the courts, to defend we the people, hardly seems statist to me.

in fact, during the health care debate, i never once defended the health care companies and in fact, was one of the loudest people on here saying they should not be publicly traded companies or, only run as non profit. why you did not call me a statist then, i do not know.

its as if, if i dont say that i want to live in Somalia, then i am a statist.

Can we get back to talking about how important my opinions are...?

Originally posted by: samUwell
the interesting thing is - the past few years, i have become more and more anti-corporate than ever before. this began after watching the govt bail out corporation after corporation and then, the banks.

i have been defending these entities for as long as i can remember and for the past few decades, our courts, instead of defending we the people, defend the corporate interest instead.

we no longer have a capitalist system and havent for a while. we are in a corporate system and standing up against them, getting a portion of the govt that i have always said i believe in, the courts, to defend we the people, hardly seems statist to me.

in fact, during the health care debate, i never once defended the health care companies and in fact, was one of the loudest people on here saying they should not be publicly traded companies or, only run as non profit. why you did not call me a statist then, i do not know.

its as if, if i dont say that i want to live in Somalia, then i am a statist.

Communist......



No, but seriously......I get you on all those too.

About the only thing worse than this:



Is this in my eyes:


Post edited by Mockery at 9/4/2012 1:51:54 AM

Originally posted by: the wierdo
Can we get back to talking about how important my opinions are...?

what is your stance on the other props on that list?

Any of them excite or invigorate you to vote YES or NO on them.

As for myself......I'm a big NOOOOOOOOOO down the list (from what I can see so far).

I'll be voting yes down the line just to cancel you out.

I'm surprised you don't like Prop 32. It would cripple organized labor.

Originally posted by: the wierdo
I'm surprised you don't like Prop 32. It would cripple organized labor.

I don't hate organized labor.......only public union organized labor.

Everyone has a right to collectively bargain for the profits of THEIR hard earned labor. Not everyone has the right to collectively bargain for more tax money that came from OTHERS hard earned labor.

I'll probably look it over a few more times before deciding.

I do like the initial idea of cutting off corporate funding to candidates though.......doubt it will work......like McCain/Fiengold failed.......but entertaining idea none the less.

Originally posted by: the wierdo
I'll be voting yes down the line just to cancel you out.

Not like that is needed in Cali. I've been cancelled out, ten million times over, since the very first day I was born.

Originally posted by: samUwell
and when have i ever promoted Anarchy? i have said numerous times on here for the past 10 years that i believe in a very small govt.

You want miniature anarchism though. It's like the putt-putt golf of anarchy.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: the wierdo
I'm surprised you don't like Prop 32. It would cripple organized labor.

I don't hate organized labor.......only public union organized labor.

Everyone has a right to collectively bargain for the profits of THEIR hard earned labor. Not everyone has the right to collectively bargain for more tax money that came from OTHERS hard earned labor.

I'll probably look it over a few more times before deciding.

I do like the initial idea of cutting off corporate funding to candidates though.......doubt it will work......like McCain/Fiengold failed.......but entertaining idea none the less.

what he said above.

also, Move to Amend

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: the wierdo
I'm surprised you don't like Prop 32. It would cripple organized labor.

I don't hate organized labor.......only public union organized labor.

Everyone has a right to collectively bargain for the profits of THEIR hard earned labor. Not everyone has the right to collectively bargain for more tax money that came from OTHERS hard earned labor.

I'll probably look it over a few more times before deciding.

I do like the initial idea of cutting off corporate funding to candidates though.......doubt it will work......like McCain/Fiengold failed.......but entertaining idea none the less.

I thought about voting yes until I read that the main financial backers were the heads of corporations, and those corporations happened to fall right in the middle of the exemptions written into the proposition. I still have to double-check if that assertion is actually true, but if so, fuck that.

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: samUwell
and when have i ever promoted Anarchy? i have said numerous times on here for the past 10 years that i believe in a very small govt.

You want miniature anarchism though. It's like the putt-putt golf of anarchy.

i dont know what you are thinking but, miniature golf is hella fun. especially drunk.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: the wierdo
I'll be voting yes down the line just to cancel you out.

Not like that is needed in Cali. I've been cancelled out, ten million times over, since the very first day I was born.

If it weren't for the propositions there'd be no reason to vote in California. Although now we're less offensively gerrymandered, right?

the props dont even do it for me.

i will more than likely be sitting this round out. it will be my first time too.

Originally posted by: samUwell

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: samUwell
and when have i ever promoted Anarchy? i have said numerous times on here for the past 10 years that i believe in a very small govt.

You want miniature anarchism though. It's like the putt-putt golf of anarchy.

i dont know what you are thinking but, miniature golf is hella fun. especially drunk.

Minarchism. I don't know if the "min" is actually short for miniature, but I stand by the spirit of my statement.

Minarchism: it's the putt-putt-golf of anarchy.

Originally posted by: samUwell
the props dont even do it for me.

i will more than likely be sitting this round out. it will be my first time too.

No Gary Johnson for you then?

Come on........even that would be a better insult to the Republicans than being disenfranchised. Sure he has no shot in hell of winning, or even doing well, since I doubt they will even let him in the big debate.......but it's better than sitting out right?

That and there are like eight new tax raises on the ballot this year. Can't say I like paying anymore taxes at the moment. Not in a state that already tops the list in almost every single tax category.

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: samUwell

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: samUwell
and when have i ever promoted Anarchy? i have said numerous times on here for the past 10 years that i believe in a very small govt.

You want miniature anarchism though. It's like the putt-putt golf of anarchy.

i dont know what you are thinking but, miniature golf is hella fun. especially drunk.

Minarchism. I don't know if the "min" is actually short for miniature, but I stand by the spirit of my statement.

Minarchism: it's the putt-putt-golf of anarchy.

Just as a Neo-Conservative is really about the matrix movie.

And we need Neo right now to save us from Al-Qaeda, terrorists, and fight for our freedom.

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: the wierdo
I'm surprised you don't like Prop 32. It would cripple organized labor.

I don't hate organized labor.......only public union organized labor.

Everyone has a right to collectively bargain for the profits of THEIR hard earned labor. Not everyone has the right to collectively bargain for more tax money that came from OTHERS hard earned labor.

I'll probably look it over a few more times before deciding.

I do like the initial idea of cutting off corporate funding to candidates though.......doubt it will work......like McCain/Fiengold failed.......but entertaining idea none the less.

I thought about voting yes until I read that the main financial backers were the heads of corporations, and those corporations happened to fall right in the middle of the exemptions written into the proposition. I still have to double-check if that assertion is actually true, but if so, fuck that.

Go figure......

Unions exempt from Obamacare.

Corporations exempt from a law stopping corporate donors.

Why not......I will be sure to keep an eye out for that as well as the election gets closer.

I put more time and effort into the Propositions than I do the candidates anymore.......but it certainly helps that I hate almost all the people I am allowed to vote for.

Originally posted by: samUwell

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: samUwell
and when have i ever promoted Anarchy? i have said numerous times on here for the past 10 years that i believe in a very small govt.

You want miniature anarchism though. It's like the putt-putt golf of anarchy.

i dont know what you are thinking but, miniature golf is hella fun. especially drunk.

Can you legally play miniature golf if you are not drunk?

And do midgets call it miniature golf, or just golf?



Is it insensitive for me to pretend that they are not playing a legitimate game of golf when they have the clubs?
Post edited by Mockery at 9/4/2012 2:35:14 AM

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: the wierdo
I'll be voting yes down the line just to cancel you out.

Not like that is needed in Cali. I've been cancelled out, ten million times over, since the very first day I was born.

If it weren't for the propositions there'd be no reason to vote in California. Although now we're less offensively gerrymandered, right?

There is a proposition (i think 40) to undue that as well.

Talk about some sour grapes that people can't indistinguishably draw the lines in the dirt however they want.

Originally posted by: Mockery
Unions exempt from Obamacare.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/23/crossroads-gps/unions-dont-have-comply-obamacare-says-crossroads-/

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: Mockery
Unions exempt from Obamacare.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/23/crossroads-gps/unions-dont-have-comply-obamacare-says-crossroads-/

Well this is comforting.......

The number of waivers are a small sample of all health plans, and many more waivers were given to big companies and corporations.

And despite what the article implies, it isn't a complete mental fabrication to say that certain union groups were given temporary exceptions. It just couldn't prove that it was due to political favoritism or in an unjust ratio.

Among those receiving waivers were employers, large insurers, such as Aetna and Cigna, and union plans covering about one million employees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

My favorite thing about rules are the special exemptions to those rules.

I love more than anything when blanket policies are enacted for everyone, but certain entities, with obvious political favoritism, find a way out of having to be a part of that system.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15452125

Reminds me of this article I posted in another thread. It's hard to trust government regulation when the majority of it is being drafted and paid into pursuit by lobbyists and special interests.

Laws can be fine.......but laws meant to give one group an advantage, or benefit, over another group are evil.

Laws that have no other intention but to grant them access to more tax payer money, or undue compensation, are what most laws today seem to be all about.

Leave it to the Republicans to find a topic that was true (like union, big corporation, exemption) and turn it into a mental fabrication through sensationalism and distortion.

Post edited by Mockery at 9/4/2012 3:17:25 AM

The important parts are this

But Balber said she saw no evidence that unions were receiving special treatment. "Pretty much anyone who applied, received them," she said. "The claim that this was special treatment falls a little flat. As a consumer organization, we think the waivers were granted too broadly, but HHS was being consistent."

and this

But there are additional problems with the ad. The ad doesn’t mention that the waivers only apply to annual coverage limits, that they’re intended to be in place only until 2014 and that many for-profit companies have received the same waivers. It gives the impression that unions are entirely exempt from the health care law, which they are not.

If it weren't for this, people would have legitimate complaints about the PPACA mandating that companies change their way of doing business overnight. Instead, anyone that had a halfway-decent excuse could push a few of those changes off to 2014. It's not that big of a deal.

I'm not sure what 32 or 35 are about, but it's no on the rest.

Every year they need money for the kids. Fuck you!

Originally posted by: Cocytus
I'm not sure what 32 or 35 are about, but it's no on the rest.

Every year they need money for the kids. Fuck you!

No kidding........Didn't we like vote on a lottery system to offset that cost and boost funding?

Didn't like all the lottery money get stolen and diverted to other shit (and there was a proposition mandating only 2% to schools a few years ago)?

Once this state has proven to be respectable, accountable, and fiscally sound with the money it already wastes......I might be willing to give them some more. Until then, they can go to bed without dessert. They can go on a hunger diet.

As long as they have money for high speed trains, to go grab sour dough bread in SF, send illegal immigrants kids to college, and pay cops/firemen 120k per year.........they obviously aren't hurting nearly as bad as they want us to pretend they are.

They are just trying to hold us, and our kids, ransom for more loot. They are trying to deny us what we want our tax money to go towards, that we already pay, while sending that elsewhere and demanding even more. I'm sorry, but I don't negotiate with extortionists, kidnappers, or terrorists.
Post edited by Mockery at 9/5/2012 12:14:02 AM