PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
CHEEZMO™;74224907 said:
IIRC the olive oil thing was to stop things like restaurants re-filling fancy bottles with cheap bulk shit and passing it off as quality stuff. I might be wrong though.
Click to expand...
That sounds right. And sounds like overreach. If it wad safe and they were advertising the proper nutritional information that seems like something that could be covered by existing false advertisement laws. It doesn't require a new directive.

Its just not something the EU should be super concerned about.

empty vessel said:
I think APKmetsfan is naive about how rampant fraud in business is. Some of us don't like to be defrauded or put in harm's way so a business can make a buck. Or a Euro.
Click to expand...
No, I just differ on how you solve this problems, or if they're even problems.
 
empty vessel said:
I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that fraud in the business world is not a problem? If so, that puts us back at square one.
Click to expand...
No. Just not all fraud is created equal. Or better put I don't think well agree on what is fraud.

The olive oil thing isnt fraud or not fraud that the government needs to care about. Wall St. Lying about mortgages is.

There's a lot of degrees of subtlety on where I draw the line. I side more on staying out, you the opposite.
 
APKmetsfan said:
That sounds right. And sounds like overreach. If it wad safe and they were advertising the proper nutritional information that seems like something that could be covered by existing false advertisement laws. It doesn't require a new directive.

Its just not something the EU should be super concerned about.


No, I just differ on how you solve this problems, or if they're even problems.
Click to expand...

APKmetsfan said:
No. Just not all fraud is created equal. Or better put I don't think well agree on what is fraud.

The olive oil thing isnt fraud or not fraud that the government needs to care about. Wall St. Lying about mortgages is.

There's a lot of degrees of subtlety on where I draw the line. I side more on staying out, you the opposite.
Click to expand...

I guess I am confused too. Because on one hand you seem to acknowledge its false advertising and covered by laws, but on the other hand you seem to disagree to anything being done about it.

Also, your previous statement that you want the government out of business, but you want to support a strong safety net and putting food on the table is counter intuitive. Because then business can take advantage of the government through the use of the safety net.

This was mentioned just above, where in the US, Walmart, because of perceived weak labor regulation, is taking advantage of the government's safety nets to the tune of over $5000 per employee per year. Effectively they don't have to worry about its employees "putting food on the table" because the government has a safety net.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your position.
 
I wonder if the jerbs numbers tomorrow will have any effect on Republicans thinking about repealing the sequester.

"North Carolina: Making South Carolina looking downright sane."
Click to expand...

"South Carolina: Now WE'RE considered the smart one!"
 
This was mentioned just above, where in the US, Walmart, because of perceived weak labor regulation, is taking advantage of the government's safety nets to the tune of over $5000 per employee per year. Effectively they don't have to worry about its employees "putting food on the table" because the government has a safety net.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a great argument for getting rid of the safety net.
 
AndyD said:
I guess I am confused too. Because on one hand you seem to acknowledge its false advertising and covered by laws, but on the other hand you seem to disagree to anything being done about it.

Also, your previous statement that you want the government out of business, but you want to support a strong safety net and putting food on the table is counter intuitive. Because then business can take advantage of the government through the use of the safety net.

This was mentioned just above, where in the US, Walmart, because of perceived weak labor regulation, is taking advantage of the government's safety nets to the tune of over $5000 per employee per year. Effectively they don't have to worry about its employees "putting food on the table" because the government has a safety net.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your position.
Click to expand...

My problem is not everything needs to be solved with a law. For example if a company is selling top of the line olive oil but it's really crap you should be able to sue them for false advertising but if they're just advertising olive oil and it's crap then there is no problem. In either case the response shouldn't be to issue new regulations. The law shouldn't care about olive oil but making sure he overall processes are followed. False advertising should apply to all products uniformly. The problem isn't the olive oil but the practice of lying. The EU is in its response is focusing in on the wrong thing.

My views also are a mix of contrary views. Lol I'm more of a pragmatist rather than and ideologue. I don't mind sacrificing overall ideologies for results that get the desire result.

And I think the US doesn't have a real safety net which is the problem with walmart. People aren't secure if they lose their job. Labor regulations also in my opinion fall under the health and safety banner so the government should be able make sure workers are protected.
 
I think APK needs to spend a bit more time at the FEMA concentration camps.

You know what this means, guys? ROAD TRIP!
 
Oblivion said:
Sounds like a great argument for getting rid of the safety net.
Click to expand...

How?? Unless the minimum wage rises Walmart has no obligation to care whether their employees get food stamps or welfare.

If you ended social safety nets there is no twisted republican magic ideal I could see where they would expect Walmart to raise wages out of the good of their hearts.
 
xnipx said:
How?? Unless the minimum wage rises Walmart has no obligation to care whether their employees get food stamps or welfare.

If you ended social safety nets there is no twisted republican magic ideal I could see where they would expect Walmart to raise wages out of the good of their hearts.
Click to expand...

He's being sarcastic
 
APKmetsfan said:
My problem is not everything needs to be solved with a law. For example if a company is selling top of the line olive oil but it's really crap you should be able to sue them for false advertising but if they're just advertising olive oil and it's crap then there is no problem. In either case the response shouldn't be to issue new regulations. The law should care about olive oil but making sure he overall processes are followed. False advertising should apply to all products. The problem isn't the olive oil but the practice of lying. The EU is in its response is focusing in on the wrong thing.

My views also are a mix of contrary views. Lol I'm more of a pragmatist rather than and ideologue. I don't mind sacrificing overall ideologies for results that get the desire result.

And I think the US doesn't have a real safety net which is the problem with walmart. People aren't secure if they lose their job. Labor regulations also in my opinion fall under the health and safety banner so the government should be able make sure workers are protected.
Click to expand...

I agree that not everything is solvable with a law.

But in the case of the olive oil, I can see some of the government interests in at least partially regulating it. For one, it seems that there were no real regulations before. A chef could go to a farm and buy some oil, then pour it for his/her customers with no real quantifiable food safety measures or trackability between orchard and table. The articles I see mention unscrupulous oil sources and origins, fake oil, unsanitary conditions of storage and serving and so forth.

But at the same time I understand the opposition. Small farmers don't have the infrastructure to bottle and sell. Artisan farmers and restaurants will suffer. Small businesses may go out of business.

I guess you have to look at the balance of food safety for the public vs. "artisan" rights. In this case food safety seems to be more important.

It's a tough and sensitive issue, but if the health and marketing concerns listed are legitimate, then I don't see how this can be regulated without legislation. Allowing suits is impracticable without trackability and without some minimum and measurable standards and expectations of food safety.
 
AndyD said:
I agree that not everything is solvable with a law.

But in the case of the olive oil, I can see some of the government interests in at least partially regulating it. For one, it seems that there were no real regulations before. A chef could go to a farm and buy some oil, then pour it for his/her customers with no real quantifiable food safety measures or trackability between orchard and table. The articles I see mention unscrupulous oil sources and origins, fake oil, unsanitary conditions of storage and serving and so forth.

But at the same time I understand the opposition. Small farmers don't have the infrastructure to bottle and sell. Artisan farmers and restaurants will suffer. Small businesses may go out of business.

I guess you have to look at the balance of food safety for the public vs. "artisan" rights. In this case food safety seems to be more important.

It's a tough and sensitive issue, but if the health and marketing concerns listed are legitimate, then I don't see how this can be regulated without legislation. Allowing suits is impracticable without trackability and without some minimum and measurable standards and expectations of food safety.
Click to expand...
If it was for safety purposes I'd support it. That's not my understanding. It's actually against small business.

But a Google search just revealed it's been revoked.
 
jamesinclair said:
With the NSA news getting worse and worse every day, Obama's legacy is being cemented as worse than Nixon.
Click to expand...

Eh he's been worse than Nixon for awhile on that issue. The same is true of nearly every president who followed Nixon. Until we get a president who's willing to put his foot down, Carter style (and suffer the consequences), this will just get worse and worse.

I'd imagine Obama got a briefing in January 2009 about how effective these programs allegedly were, the terrorist attacks allegedly stopped, etc. And while I could buy that some type of surveillance is (unfortunately) necessary, the NSA is out of control.

This is made worse by the fact that he spent much of 2007/2008 claiming he'd restore civil liberty protections, when in reality he's been worse than Bush.
 
APKmetsfan said:
Which is why its silly to call obama a center right leader he's not, some of his proposals might be to the right of some republican proposals in years past but Obama is firmly in the tradition of the US left and unless your going to call LBJ or Carter right he fits that mold.
Click to expand...

Since when has Obama declared a war on poverty or claim that it was the United States duty to "not fire a single shot in the world"?
 
Greg Sargent ‏@ThePlumLineGS 25m
Dems aides tell me they're skeptical House Rs can even pass a CR funding the gov't at current *sequester* levels.
Click to expand...

Welp.

Senate Republicans just successfully filibustered the transportation and housing bill, with most of the Republicans who had voted for the bill in committee siding today with the GOP leadership and the Tea Party against letting it move forward. Republicans blocked it in a 54-43 vote.
Click to expand...

WELP
 
Oh irony, how I love thee.

Seems the chief blogger for Redstate (not Erick, son of Erick) has been hospitalized and is under critical condition. Here's the icing:

It would lift an incredible burden for Caleb & Donna if they could get even the smallest amount of help with these upcoming expenses and with anything extra that comes in, we will help Caleb & Donna with their medical bills as Caleb is uninsured.
Click to expand...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...gger-in-Critical-Condition-in-NC-No-Insurance
 
B-Dubs said:
This is why you always get insurance. There is no healthcare market, odds are good we'll all need a doctor at some point or another in our lives. You're always healthy until you aren't.
Click to expand...

It's also perfect timing since that Groundswell group launched that whole "it's cool to not buy health insurance" thing this week.
 
Dax01 said:
Helping repeal Glass-Steagall? As far as I am aware, the 2008 financial crisis had little to do with repealing that bill.
Click to expand...

GS repeal is a bit meme-ish, but deregulation was certainly (one of many) causes of the crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–...80.9Crepeal.E2.80.9D_and_the_financial_crisis

xnipx said:
How?? Unless the minimum wage rises Walmart has no obligation to care whether their employees get food stamps or welfare.

If you ended social safety nets there is no twisted republican magic ideal I could see where they would expect Walmart to raise wages out of the good of their hearts.
Click to expand...

Economics fantasy land: Workers refusing to work jobs whose wages they cannot subsist on which exerts upward pressure on wages.
 
Repealing Glass-Steagall put us on the path to 2008's crash. I wouldn't want Robert Rubin 10 foot near the White House, and I hold the same opinion on most senior people responsible for that decision. We can haggle over non-senior people who's opinions didn't matter much in discussions.

Gene Sterling was Summer's point man on Gramm-Leach-Bliley. I can't say I have much of any confidence in him, but that's just me.
 
PhoenixPause said:
Eh he's been worse than Nixon for awhile on that issue. The same is true of nearly every president who followed Nixon. Until we get a president who's willing to put his foot down, Carter style (and suffer the consequences), this will just get worse and worse.

I'd imagine Obama got a briefing in January 2009 about how effective these programs allegedly were, the terrorist attacks allegedly stopped, etc. And while I could buy that some type of surveillance is (unfortunately) necessary, the NSA is out of control.

This is made worse by the fact that he spent much of 2007/2008 claiming he'd restore civil liberty protections, when in reality he's been worse than Bush.
Click to expand...

Obama can't change the Presidency. The Presidency changed him. I won't say he's necessarily corrupt....but you're kidding yourself if you think the idealist from 2008 is anywhere close to still being in there.
 
Vizantir said:
Obama can't change the Presidency. The Presidency changed him. I won't say he's necessarily corrupt....but you're kidding yourself if you think the idealist from 2008 is anywhere close to still being in there.
Click to expand...

I agree there are certain...bad things caked into the very role of being president, but there are plenty of things a president can do to halt civil liberty abuses in a post 911 world. Obama could have shut down a lot of NSA's work, just as he (allegedly) shut down torture. We can't unilaterally concede on issues like this by expecting nothing to ever get better. Presidents have stood up to powerful forces before (see: JFK, Carter).

Ultimately I think Cheney is right: Obama got smacked with a very grim security picture and decided to keep Bush's foreign policy/civil liberty tactics in place. How accurate that picture was...we'll never know. I have serious doubts given the history of military and security forces giving presidents bad advice (see: Vietnam, Iraq).

*I say allegedly because Bradley Manning was basically tortured and black sites still exist. Given the crazy shit being leaked, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we're still using a variety of torture tactics.
 
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/0...ratives-on-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/

You guys ready for more benghazi?

This actually is a story and not GOP nonsense and basically confirms what many thought about why the whole thing looked like a screw up and their was so much blame shifting.

Lawmakers also want to about know the weapons in Libya, and what happened to them.

Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.
Click to expand...
 
Obamas first day on the job should have been firing and prosecuting the people destroying america.

Instead he checked out a golf club and let them continue to do their thing
 
This would also mean Rand Paul was right, and Hillary Clinton dodged perjury by laughing off his question haha. Although...can you even be hit with perjury for lying about a covert operation?
 
Lindsey Graham was talking to Wolf Blitzer saying how we need the NSA programs and how listening into the Boston bombers phone calls could have prevented it. What an odious man.
 
Well, this was really sad. The guy behind one of the lesser known political blogs I frequent, Doghouse Riley, died recently. Dunno if you guys ever read him, but he was one of the more entertaining political writings I've encountered. Here's some of his best work:

http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2011/12/shorter-david-brooks-i-agree-with.html

http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2007/10/everything-newt-is-old-again.html

http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-th-hell-batting-clean-up-ross.html

David Brooks and Newt Gingrich were frequent targets of his ire, and his takedowns were the stuff of legends. Shame it's all over now. :(
 
So what's to be made about this? Are the huge increases temporary and expected to come down over time?

In a conference call with reporters Thursday afternoon, Ohio Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor said health insurance premiums will increase 41 percent due to the Affordable Care Act. Taylor and Gov. John R. Kasich declined to run Ohio's ACA mandated exchange, leaving the task to the Federal government.
Click to expand...

http://www.examiner.com/article/lt-...-for-41-rise-ohio-healthcare-premiums?cid=rss

“President Obama promised Americans that Obamacare would lower rates, but here in Georgia insurance companies are demanding massive rate increases up to 198 percent for some individuals,” Hudgens said. “There’s just tons of unanswered questions.”
Click to expand...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...officials-want-a-30-day-implementation-delay/
 
PhoenixPause said:
How ironic would it be if Glenn Beck was right about this all along: ie it was a weapons deal.
Click to expand...

Its obvious the CIA was involved. Thought he speculation about a weapons deal seems to be just that. Twenty bucks says some staffer told them that and they included it in the story. It doesn't mention CIA sources and only "on capitol hill". It doesn't fit Obama's history and his reluctance to get involved remember.

Its the same theory that's been floating around ron paul and right wing sites. Which says the state department not the CIA was doing some missile deal. Which is obviously an attempt to tar hillary but protect the noble military. It might have had something to do with gathering weapons in Lybia but this whole syria connection reads like a conservative fantasy to avenge the great reagan for his missile deal while showing Obama to be arming AQ.

Zen said:
So what's to be made about this? Are the huge increases temporary and expected to come down over time?



http://www.examiner.com/article/lt-...-for-41-rise-ohio-healthcare-premiums?cid=rss



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...officials-want-a-30-day-implementation-delay/
Click to expand...

Partisan manipulation. Rates are lower than expected in blue states but in red states higher. Conveniently the people who want it to fail are finding it failing.
 
el retorno said:
I want them to listen to the boston bombers. just get a warrant for something that invasive
Click to expand...

Except for that pesky fact that they had no idea this was going to happen till it did. So you are asking for the government to listen in on its citizens all the time which are normally the hallmarks of a dictatorship.
 
Henchmen21 said:
Except for that pesky fact that they had no idea this was going to happen till it did. So you are asking for the government to listen in on its citizens all the time which are normally the hallmarks of a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not really looking at the boston bombers only just if they have probable cause I think its OK to listen to phone calls. Like if they get a tip. Its the warrantless part I don't like. Phone taps are fine.
 
Aaron Strife said:
RUH-ROH!!!

https://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/51102/images/Mellman Polling Memo on Grimes_8.1.13.pdf

Grimes 44
McConnell 42
Click to expand...

lolsvzkw.gif


Zen said:
So what's to be made about this? Are the huge increases temporary and expected to come down over time?



http://www.examiner.com/article/lt-...-for-41-rise-ohio-healthcare-premiums?cid=rss


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...officials-want-a-30-day-implementation-delay/
Click to expand...

I wonder why only Republicans are worried about this. Surely it isn't partisanship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NEOPOP: Pulse of Pop Music OT1 a New Era
46
18K
Bullet Club replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
UberTag replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
397 398 399 400 401
20K
2M
ShadowSwordmaster replied
Tabletop & Board Game Design |OT1| By Peoples for Meeples
2
50
6K
RelentlessRolento replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
255K
firehawk12 replied
Top Bottom