Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food [Archive]

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 06:02 PM

Cosponsors:

Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] - 3/3/2009
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 11/18/2009
Sen Burr, Richard [NC] - 3/3/2009
Sen Burris, Roland [IL] - 6/24/2009
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] - 3/4/2009
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] - 3/3/2009
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 11/30/2009
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 10/14/2009
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] - 3/3/2009
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 11/30/2009
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 11/9/2009
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - 3/3/2009
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] - 3/3/2009
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] - 3/4/2009
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [NE] - 6/16/2010
Sen Udall, Tom [NM] - 7/28/2009
Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 5/27/2010

Actions:

ALL ACTIONS:

3/3/2009:
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2692-2693)
3/3/2009:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2693-2705)

11/18/2009:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

12/18/2009:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Reported by Senator Harkin with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
12/18/2009:
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 247.

This is old news. Why is it thread worthy?

DarkReign

08-13-2010, 06:03 PM

....and what are the chances of this passing?

Marcus Bryant

08-13-2010, 06:05 PM

....and what are the chances of this passing?

In this country today? Pretty good, I would say.

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 06:06 PM

....and what are the chances of this passing?
Slim to none, unless someone to benefit is owed a favor.

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 06:06 PM

In this country today? Pretty good, I would say.
Only because congress is full of authoritarians.

CosmicCowboy

08-13-2010, 06:21 PM

....and what are the chances of this passing?

It will be sold as being all about "safety". I'm sure you guys have heard about the legislation to mark produce so there is a specific paper trail on every head of lettuce, every tomato, etc. so it can be tracked back to the farm it was produced on....This is all really about big agri-business dominating markets and pushing the little guys out.

Good Bye farmers markets.

Marcus Bryant

08-13-2010, 06:25 PM

It will be sold as being all about "safety". I'm sure you guys have heard about the legislation to mark produce so there is a specific paper trail on every head of lettuce, every tomato, etc. so it can be tracked back to the farm it was produced on....This is all really about big agri-business dominating markets and pushing the little guys out.

Good Bye farmers markets.

Essentially. This country places a premium on not knowing how to provide for one's self. And the amusing thing is that grass-fed beef is now seen as something exotic or "organic."

LnGrrrR

08-13-2010, 06:28 PM

Wait though... WC, you are cool with allowing the government to spy on your emails, because it's to protect us from terrorists, right? What about terrorists possibly spoiling a food supply? Or introducing a biological agent into a food source? Why does viewing email get a pass but securing the safety of our foodstuffs doesn't? (Note: I'm playing Devil's Advocate; I don't agree with this law.)

LnGrrrR

08-13-2010, 06:28 PM

Essentially. This country places a premium on not knowing how to provide for one's self. And the amusing thing is that grass-fed beef is now seen as something exotic or "organic."

Given that the majority of beef is pumped up with antibiotics and fed other dead animals, I'd say that grass-fed beef IS exotic. :lol

Marcus Bryant

08-13-2010, 06:45 PM

"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

boutons_deux

08-13-2010, 07:14 PM

"love big government?"

you know fucking well this isn't a govt move, but BigFarma buying Congress to try retain control of all food, and shitty food it is, while not being able to guarantee it's not adulterated or infected.

LnGrrrR

08-13-2010, 07:16 PM

Parker2112

08-13-2010, 07:44 PM

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 09:02 PM

It will be sold as being all about "safety". I'm sure you guys have heard about the legislation to mark produce so there is a specific paper trail on every head of lettuce, every tomato, etc. so it can be tracked back to the farm it was produced on....This is all really about big agri-business dominating markets and pushing the little guys out.

Good Bye farmers markets.
No shit.

I prefer the farmers markets myself. The produce tastes so much better.

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 09:06 PM

Wait though... WC, you are cool with allowing the government to spy on your emails, because it's to protect us from terrorists, right?
I didn't say I was cool with it, I said I understand, and pointed about the probable legal reasons they can do it.

What about terrorists possibly spoiling a food supply? Or introducing a biological agent into a food source?
The larger the supplier, the easier done. One big supplier vs. 10,000+ farmers markets...

Which is easier to attack?

Why does viewing email get a pass but securing the safety of our foodstuffs doesn't? (Note: I'm playing Devil's Advocate; I don't agree with this law.)

Legal reasons, and the Commerce clause is meant for interstate commerce. Not intrastate.

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 09:07 PM

"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Sound's like he predicted our typical libtards of today to me...

Nbadan

08-13-2010, 09:19 PM

....seriously? Infowars? Alex Jones? :lol

You wing-nuts know that Jones is a full-blown truther, right?

Nbadan

08-13-2010, 09:29 PM

Using wing-nut logic of guilt by association, all you wing-nuts are truthers now too....congratulations!

:lol

Parker2112

08-13-2010, 09:58 PM

....seriously? Infowars? Alex Jones? :lol

You wing-nuts know that Jones is a full-blown truther, right?

Sure thing, but DID YOU READ THE BILL?

Parker2112

08-13-2010, 10:01 PM

Legal reasons, and the Commerce clause is meant for interstate commerce. Not intrastate.

You realize the Supreme Court has disallowed farmers to use a portion of their own crop when the crop was regulated, because it any exception would affect interstate commerce, right? even though though the only movement of wheat was from his field to his chicken coop?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 10:02 PM

Sure thing, but DID YOU READ THE BILL?
My God man...

It's fucking old news!

Who the fuck cares?

Parker2112

08-13-2010, 10:13 PM

My God man...

It's fucking old news!

Who the fuck cares?

you realize it still might pass right?

Parker2112

08-13-2010, 10:16 PM

12/18/2009: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 247.

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 10:17 PM

you realize it still might pass right?
LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

You crazy?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

No action since last year on it...

LOL...

LOLl...

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid the democrats feed you...

LOL...

Parker2112

08-13-2010, 10:22 PM

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

You crazy?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

No action since last year on it...

LOL...

LOLl...

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid the democrats feed you...

LOL...

evidently farmers are still concerned, as of a couple of months ago...it is still in committee

http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-foodsafety.htm

Wild Cobra

08-13-2010, 10:23 PM

12/18/2009: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 247.
So?

Isn't it apparent...

It's in the circular file!

Parker2112

08-13-2010, 10:25 PM

So?

Isn't it apparent...

It's in the circular file!

I hear you, and I see what you see, but evidently I dont know what these farmer's advocates know...

Parker2112

08-13-2010, 10:26 PM

Food Safety: The Worst of Both Bills (HR 2749 & S 510)
BY PETE KENNEDY, ESQ. | MAY 6, 2010
File: 050610--Food_Safety_The_Worst.pdf (http://spurstalk.com/forums/050610--Food_Safety_The_Worst.pdf)
If S 510 (the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S.0510:)) passes the Senate, there would be a conference committee between members of the House and Senate to draft a food safety bill that would combine provisions of S 510 and HR 2749 (the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.02749:)) into a final version of the bill. The full House and Senate each would vote on this version of the bill to determine whether the food safety bill becomes law.

Nbadan

08-13-2010, 11:08 PM

Sure thing, but DID YOU READ THE BILL?

Yes, at least the parts that you think will stop people from growing and sharing food...apply some common sense man......you really think the government can stop people from growing their own food and sharing it with others?

SnakeBoy

08-13-2010, 11:26 PM

but you cant deny that when its all said and done the power will lay with the politicians...

Fight the power Parker.

Winehole23

08-13-2010, 11:48 PM

Slightly related:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109853&highlight=codex

Winehole23

08-13-2010, 11:50 PM

More to the point:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141720&highlight=Food+safety+modernization

Nbadan

08-13-2010, 11:56 PM

Good to see this conspiracy theory has been talked about here before...

...can we put this one to bed?

Parker2112

08-14-2010, 12:01 AM

Yes, at least the parts that you think will stop people from growing and sharing food...apply some common sense man......you really think the government can stop people from growing their own food and sharing it with others?

Common Sense fails you here, as ridiculous as that may sound.

Of course they wouldnt enforce it at such a minute level, right?

Thats not the problem...the problem is not where they will voluntarily stop enforcement...the problem is that they grab enough power to set the line where they want it in the first place.

Parker2112

08-14-2010, 12:02 AM

Good to see this conspiracy theory has been talked about here before...

...can we put this one to bed?

what was the verdict?

Parker2112

08-14-2010, 12:03 AM

also, you guys have to understand that the govt is increasing its power at very small increments, and we are the frog in the pot that will not feel the heat until its too late. these power grabbing policies started years ago. they will be patient with this shit.

Winehole23

08-14-2010, 12:08 AM

what was the verdict?As you well know we do not know. There's no law yet.

Oh, Gee!!

08-14-2010, 12:27 AM

this bill will not pass as it is currently written; but if voters are disgusted by the introduction of such a bill, they should pay attention to which candidates monsanto corp. opens its wallet to.

boutons_deux

08-14-2010, 05:40 AM

yes, the power to legislate is granted to Congress by the electorate, but the electorate disenfranchised by the corporate/capitalist money.

If Congress passes something, you can be damn sure some corporation or business sector is getting money through tax break, subsidy, market distortion/unfair advantage, loopholes. Otherwise, Congress wouldn't do shit, include declare war on Iraq (which was a financial project, and a not security/democracy enterprise, to enrich the oilcos and MIC)

And you can be damn sure the law was actually written by private sector people who are rewarded by the legislation, and was probably not read by Congress.

As see in the health care and financial reform bills, the bills are broad, concepts, statements of direction, guidance, while the real legislation is implemented by the post-passage rule-making and regulations produced to implement the broad legislation. The health care and financial lobbyists were deeply involved in getting the legislative language they wanted, and then are still deeply involved influencing even writing the rules and regulations, favoring themselves, and blunting any disadvantage.

TheProfessor

08-14-2010, 08:23 AM

You realize the Supreme Court has disallowed farmers to use a portion of their own crop when the crop was regulated, because it any exception would affect interstate commerce, right? even though though the only movement of wheat was from his field to his chicken coop?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
It's a little more complicated than just Wickard. United States v. Lopez struck down handgun possession laws in school zones under the Commerce Clause, and United States v. Morrison struck down parts the Violence Against Women Act. Morrison is especially important here, because the Court held that aggregate effects, like in Wickard, had to directly affect interstate commerce. The Supreme Court could find a way to distinguish this case from Wickard, given its current make-up.

DarkReign

08-14-2010, 09:25 AM

Have an opinion of WC all you like, dude knows Congress' schedule and if he says "Its basically dead", I believe him.

Still though...I am, well not amazed...I am in awe of the audacity of this bill.

It may not see the light of day as it is currently written, but its mutant offspring will see the docket in the future.

Parker2112

08-14-2010, 10:16 AM

yes, the power to legislate is granted to Congress by the electorate, but the electorate disenfranchised by the corporate/capitalist money.

If Congress passes something, you can be damn sure some corporation or business sector is getting money through tax break, subsidy, market distortion/unfair advantage, loopholes. Otherwise, Congress wouldn't do shit, include declare war on Iraq (which was a financial project, and a security/democracy enterprise, to enrich the oilcos and MIC)

And you can be damn sure the law was actually written by private sector people who are rewarded by the legislation, and was probably not read by Congress.

As see in the health care and financial reform bills, the bills are broad, concepts, statements of direction, guidance, while the real legislation is implemented by the post-passage rule-making and regulations produced to implement the broad legislation. The health care and financial lobbyists were deeply involved in getting the legislative language they wanted, and then are still deeply involved influencing even writing the rules and regulations, favoring themselves, and blunting any disadvantage.

I agree with everything here.

I say, if the coprs/special interests are the bloodsuckers, then limiting the scope/pervasiveness of govt regulatory power necessarily cuts off the sucker tubes.

Parker2112

08-14-2010, 10:24 AM

It's a little more complicated than just Wickard. United States v. Lopez struck down handgun possession laws in school zones under the Commerce Clause, and United States v. Morrison struck down parts the Violence Against Women Act. Morrison is especially important here, because the Court held that aggregate effects, like in Wickard, had to directly affect interstate commerce. The Supreme Court could find a way to distinguish this case from Wickard, given its current make-up.

Good call. I think Morrison provides pretty solid protection for local markets/growers/distribution from fed regulation. At least I hope its that simple.

Commerce Clause
With regard to the Commerce Clause, the majority said that United States v. Lopez (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez) (1995) was the controlling precedent. Lopez held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional. There as in Morrison, the court stressed "enumerated powers" that limit federal power in order to maintain "a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local." Lopez therefore limited the scope of the Commerce Clause to exclude activity that was not directly economic in nature, even if there were indirect economic consequences. Lopez was the first significant limitation on the Commerce Clause powers of Congress in 53 years.
The majority concluded that acts of violence such as those that VAWA was meant to remedy had only an "attenuated" effect, not a substantial one, on interstate commerce. The government, however, argued that "a mountain of evidence" indicated that these acts in the aggregate did have a substantial effect; for this proposition it relied on Wickard v. Filburn (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) (1942), which held that Congress could regulate an individual act that lacked a substantial effect on interstate commerce if, when aggregated, acts of that sort had the required relation to interstate commerce. Once again relying on Lopez, the majority replied that the aggregation principle of Wickard did not apply because economic effects of crimes against women were indirect, and therefore could not be addressed through the Commerce Clause.
The Court explained that the need to distinguish between economic activities that directly and those that indirectly affect interstate commerce was due to "the concern that we expressed in Lopez that Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitution’s distinction between national and local authority." Referring to Lopez, the Court said: "Were the Federal Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional State concern, areas having nothing to do with the regulation of commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of federal and State authority would blur." The majority further stated, "t is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign." Justice Thomas's concurring opinion also expressed the concern that "Congress [was] appropriating State police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
The majority, quoting from [I]NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board_v._Jones_%26_Laughl in_Steel_Corporation) (1937), said that the scope of the interstate commerce power
“must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government.”
The Lopez court stated that Congress may regulate (1) use of the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the "instrumentalities" (for example, vehicles) used in interstate commerce, and (3) activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Because VAWA's civil remedy concededly did not regulate the first or second categories, the Morrison court analyzed its validity under the third.

Wild Cobra

08-14-2010, 09:19 PM

It may not see the light of day as it is currently written, but its mutant offspring will see the docket in the future.
That's why we have to vote the idiots out that sponsor, cosponer, and vote for such things.

Wild Cobra

08-14-2010, 09:20 PM

I agree with everything here.

I say, if the coprs/special interests are the bloodsuckers, then limiting the scope/pervasiveness of govt regulatory power necessarily cuts off the sucker tubes.
Yep... Boutons is a good soul-mate for you.

boutons_deux

08-14-2010, 09:30 PM

Are you jerks still saying less govt regulations are the answer to everything?

I guess you were asleep when all the financial deregulation and its disasters happened in the last 25 years, and continues to screw up the US economy for years to come.

Airline deregulation has made airlines wonderful profit machines and air travel such a joy. I just heard the ex-AA chairman said he would never buy airline stocks. :)

And energy deregulation has kept electricity prices very low, ask Houston and Dallas.

Wild Cobra

08-14-2010, 09:59 PM

Airline deregulation has made airlines wonderful profit machines and air travel such a joy. I just heard the ex-AA chairman said he would never buy airline stocks. :)
WTF you talking about? They have regulations up the ass still.

And energy deregulation has kept electricity prices very low, ask Houston and Dallas.
Sorry, but there is a free market thing called supply and demand. More places would love to build more plants, especially nuclear, but regulations just keep getting in the way now, don't they?

bigzak25

08-15-2010, 12:11 AM

I'm no prophet, but this is just a taste.

When the sh@# hits the fan, enter the anti-christ and enter Fascism to the extreme.

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

Unity through fear of persecution. You know, the whole star wars thing, with the Emperor and the death star that would destroy any who acted up. Same same.

I've already signed up for the Rebellion. Have you?

Winehole23

08-15-2010, 04:17 AM

:smchode:

Nbadan

08-15-2010, 04:47 AM

http://www.dayofthejedi.com/articles/2008/05/images/motivators/b/110.jpg

TeyshaBlue

08-15-2010, 07:40 AM

Yes, at least the parts that you think will stop people from growing and sharing food...apply some common sense man......you really think the government can stop people from growing
their own food and sharing it with others?
Patriot Act much? I'm convinced there's nothing the govt won't fuck up when incentives are plentiful.

boutons_deux

08-15-2010, 08:47 AM

WC

what regulations are keeping the airlines continuously near bankruptcy and keeping the passengers in such cattle-car discomfort? Which ones would you remove? FAA safety inspections? flight-worthy certificates?

btw, if airlines killed (300 people on a headline grabbing crash) and maimed as many people annually as BigPharma (killed one by one, no headlines), people wouldn't go to the airport.

"Using the Austin rate of 10 cents per kilowatt as a benchmark of still-regulated pricing, Texans in deregulated markets pay a premium of 29% above the regulated rate. Some have regarded the unmet expectation of lower rates promised by deregulation as a failure.[4] Many states are now putting their plan to deregulate on hold because lower rates have yet to be achieved in any of the deregulated states."

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

There were strictly financial ("free market") shenanigans in Houston electricy market, capitalists buying and selling among themselves "freely", that really screwed up the electricity prices way above SA's monopoly supplier.

And remember "free market" Enron screwing over CA and other states by artificially restricting electricity supply to push up prices and cause brownouts in 2000-2001. dubya's FERC absolutely refused in intervene and investigate KennyBoy's screw job that made Enron's traders $Bs.

"deregulation" is, in many cases, a euphemism for "free to screw the consumer". The conservative/libertarian advocates of destroying govt's countervailing power against corporations understand perfectly that they are lying to the sheeple.

The very nature of commerce is to sell the shittiest product for the highest price. It's an adversarial relationship where mega-corps' and local monopolies' power and sophistication vastly outguns (gunning people is The Great American Way) the consumer.

TheProfessor

08-15-2010, 09:33 AM

Good call. I think Morrison provides pretty solid protection for local markets/growers/distribution from fed regulation. At least I hope its that simple.
Well, that's what everyone thought for a while, until Gonzales v. Raich, where the Supreme Court endorsed laws banning homegrown marijuana under the Commerce Clause. From where I sit, distinguishing that from homegrown food as far as aggregate effects on the economy would be pretty difficult. But it would present an opportunity for the court to try and limit Wickard's reach, and Justice Roberts can be crafty about things like this. Who knows.

bigzak25

08-15-2010, 03:08 PM

I'm telling you guys, truth is stranger than fiction, you just remember that.

This country as is, is going down the toilet and we all know it.

There will eventually be a breaking point. Someone will then rise up and say enough of the bickering and grandstanding from opposing sides of the aisles. There will be a unification for the supposed good of the country. Mussolini was praised by many when he was in power.

Individualism will be thought of as a thing of the past. You will comply or you will be eliminated. Are you ready for that? Hope so.

Beware the unifier that does so without God. Those with ears to hear, hear.

boutons_deux

08-15-2010, 04:26 PM

"without God"

give some example where God-loving revolutions installed benign, democratic democracies (or theocracies).

American Christian leaders remained complicitly silent as dubya and the Repugs lied their way into Iraq. They certainly didn't want to appear unAmerican-ly non-imperialistic, or, above all, risk losing contributions from their scammed flocks.

bigzak25

08-15-2010, 04:37 PM

Well I'm an American Christian leader and I'll step forward and say that the fact that the only reason we were over there was due to our interests in protecting Israel and Oil is pretty disgusting.

But I am very proud of the result of removing Saddam from power as he was a terror that needed to meet his maker. The people of Iraq still have a long way to go towards stability in the region, but I believe they are better off without Saddam in power and we owe credit to our Military forces for that.

Now Afghanistan is a whole nuther ballgame. There is no head of the snake. This is a virtual snake called Islam. You cannot win that war. You can only diffuse it through education of the children, and let the ignorant die off of old age and self-sacrifice.

What our armed forces should be doing is going into the regions where military warlords are persecuting their people and committing genocide. Our military should be freeing those people and helping them to get on their feet in a peaceful civilization. But there is no oil there. And I am disgusted.

boutons_deux

08-15-2010, 06:34 PM

Marcus Bryant

08-15-2010, 06:41 PM

bigzak25

08-15-2010, 06:49 PM

"removing Saddam"

there's lots a bad guys running countries, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, East Africa but US can't find justification there.

Iraq would have been much better off under Saddam, 100s of 1000s of fewer deaths, millions fewer internal/external refugees, and working water, sewer, electricity.

I think we agree that it's disturbing that the US cannot find the justification to help the people in those aforementioned countries boutons.

As for Iraq being much better off under Saddam, well...I was lucky enough to have never lived under him and I thank God for that. It is unquestionably tragic that so many died in the Iraq War. Whether it was worth it or not, well, I'll have to defer to the opinions of the Iraqis themselves as I am in no position to make an accurate assessment.

Marcus Bryant

08-15-2010, 06:54 PM

I am glad that the federal government cannot find a way to justify additional military excursions.

bigzak25

08-15-2010, 06:56 PM

Perhaps the Department of Defense should concentrate on...the national defense and stop going on offense to free the world and spread this transcendentalist American democracy claptrap. As for Israel, let's cut to the chase. The Jews can take care of themselves now if that's your concern.

I see your points Marcus, but I feel that the best defense is a good offense against the enemies.

Now what constitutes a good offense is up for debate. I say give more food, medicine, and education to the oppressed children of these nations is the best offense to end the ignorance and the hatred.

But the bad guys have to be eliminated for these countries to be free enough to reap those benefits.

That is the problem with the Islam fanatics...they cannot be eliminated with guns. That just gives them fodder for recruitment. They must be eliminated at the source. The children must be set free and allowed to grow up in an environment free of these evil men that will kill in the name of their supposed god.

As for Israel, yes, they can take care of themselves to a point.

What happens when the nuke goes off in the holy land?

What's the next move for the world powers and where does the finger pointing start and stop? That's the key question.

Marcus Bryant

08-15-2010, 07:01 PM

To head off a potential problem let's start one (or two, or three)?

The purpose of the United States government and its armed forces is not to evangelize at the point of a gun throughout the world.

Winehole23

08-15-2010, 10:00 PM

The purpose of the United States government and its armed forces is not to evangelize at the point of a gun throughout the world.Or maybe it is. TBD.

LnGrrrR

08-16-2010, 01:58 AM

Now what constitutes a good offense is up for debate. I say give more food, medicine, and education to the oppressed children of these nations is the best offense to end the ignorance and the hatred.

But the bad guys have to be eliminated for these countries to be free enough to reap those benefits.

This is it, in a nutshell. It would be better to send supplies, food, medicine, but warlords will just take these supplies and become even more powerful.

The solution, then, is to either send an entire unit over there to keep the peace indefinitely (while possibly irritating and endangering locals), or to realize the limits of our capabilities. I choose the second. The United States can not and should not try to "police" the world.

boutons_deux

08-16-2010, 04:55 AM

75 years x $200B/year = $15T to occupy a country that wasn't a threat to USA, was tied down by US troops in the neighboring (oil-rich) countries and flyovers, but was excluding US/UK oilcos from oil contracts given to France, Russia, China.

TeyshaBlue

08-16-2010, 08:03 AM

To head off a potential problem let's start one (or two, or three)?

The purpose of the United States government and its armed forces is not to evangelize at the point of a gun throughout the world.

We don't set backfires to well, do we?

boutons_deux

08-16-2010, 08:21 AM

"backfires"

dubya's/Repugs' bullshit wars have killed more Americans than the terrorists could ever dream of, to say nothing of the 100s of $Bs wasted on "intelligence" and employer-of-last-resort TSA, radiating pregnant women, babies, and children at airports, etc, etc.

America is its own worst enemy.

bigzak25

08-16-2010, 11:18 AM

America is the World's superpower. I feel it is our obligation to police the world, but only to the point where we are eliminating ruthless dictatorships where the people are suffering and oppressed.

We should not let our own personal and national interests be our guide for which battles should be fought. The world is not blind. They see us Americans only going to fight for 'freedom' where ever there is oil. That's why it's hard to anyone in the world to take America seriously when we speak of fighting the good fight. If/when the US decides that we should work with other nations, an alliance, to fight the good fight and free oppressed people and provide for oppressed people all over the world, then and only then, will we have any solid ground to stand on.

As for the opinion that we should just mind our own business. Well, you can play that head in the sand game for only so long. The bad guys will not go away on their own. They will only grow stronger if the problem is ignored. You might feel that these wars are not at your doorstep, but you are wrong. I don't expect a taliban jihadist to show up at your door with a bomb around his chest, but I do expect them to target our economy and also to target our dependence on the oil of the middle east.

The American economy is a joke as it is. There is nothing backing it other than consumer greed. It is doomed to failure soon enough, but a nuke here...a nuke there...and this war is on your doorstep whether you like it or not. When the money you have in your wallet and in your accounts is just worthless paper. When the gas stops flowing at the corner store. When you no longer get electricity at your houses. When the water stops running...or stops being trusted as good enough to drink.

Then we will feel the suffering that all these oppressed people in all these other countries are feeling right now. You don't want to care for them because you feel you are better then them or something? Just because you were blessed to be born in the USA? What a spoiled brat we have become. Wake up. We should be leading the way to peace and prosperity for the whole world.

The technology and resources are there to accomplish this. We only lack the will.

The time is now.

boutons_deux

08-16-2010, 11:23 AM

"police the world"

All serious police forces have "police of the police", aka "internal investigation", to root out crooked, corrupt cops

Who's going to police the US's corrupt, crooked police?

bigzak25

08-16-2010, 11:33 AM

Well I've suggested in another thread before that Congress should have internal ethics auditors that have unlimited access to financial records, etc.

As for the President...the People of the United States will police him or her as they will vote their asses out of office if they do not do as they promise.

boutons_deux

08-16-2010, 11:35 AM

"Congress should have internal ethics auditors that have unlimited access to financial records"

Congress policing itself? GMAFB

bigzak25

08-16-2010, 11:40 AM

policing each other.

the democrats police the republicans and vice versa as it is.

but you are right, the system is a spiderweb of bribes and I believe integrity is a curse word on capital hill.

so external auditors to begin with would be a good start.

bigzak25

08-16-2010, 11:40 AM

Obama preaches transparency, lets hold him to his word.

Time to walk the walk Mr. President.

boutons_deux

08-16-2010, 12:00 PM

"Democrats police the republicans and vice versa as it is."

:lol

A wonderful, msyterious coincidence that two BLACK Dems are getting taken down right in the middle of the race-baiting/racist Repugs' campaign to win back Congress.

LnGrrrR

08-16-2010, 04:42 PM

As for the opinion that we should just mind our own business. Well, you can play that head in the sand game for only so long. The bad guys will not go away on their own. They will only grow stronger if the problem is ignored. You might feel that these wars are not at your doorstep, but you are wrong. I don't expect a taliban jihadist to show up at your door with a bomb around his chest, but I do expect them to target our economy and also to target our dependence on the oil of the middle east.

Why do you think they're so mad at us? Could it possibly be because we're occupying their country? :lol

We've lost more people to war than we did during 9/11. And that's just the American side of it.

It is doomed to failure soon enough, but a nuke here...a nuke there...and this war is on your doorstep whether you like it or not. When the money you have in your wallet and in your accounts is just worthless paper. When the gas stops flowing at the corner store. When you no longer get electricity at your houses. When the water stops running...or stops being trusted as good enough to drink.

Tell me, do you think it's really that easy to set off a nuke in the United States? Is it worth spending millions of dollars fighting in another country? Do you think the Iraq War has done anything to prevent the possibility of someone setting off a nuke in America?

Then we will feel the suffering that all these oppressed people in all these other countries are feeling right now. You don't want to care for them because you feel you are better then them or something? Just because you were blessed to be born in the USA? What a spoiled brat we have become. Wake up. We should be leading the way to peace and prosperity for the whole world.

Just because we recognize poverty doesn't mean we can fix it. Bad stuff happens; the US can't fix everything. Doesn't mean we don't feel for those people, but there's limits on what we can achieve. Our military is already stretched thin as it is; according to your proposal we'd be starting wars in 5 or so new countries.

The technology and resources are there to accomplish this. We only lack the will.
The time is now.

We don't have the resources.

bigzak25

08-17-2010, 03:56 AM

Tell me, do you think it's really that easy to set off a nuke in the United States? Is it worth spending millions of dollars fighting in another country? Do you think the Iraq War has done anything to prevent the possibility of someone setting off a nuke in America?

I think the Iraq war was a good fight, even if it wasn't driven by pure motivations. I'm glad Saddam is gone. As for whether it is easy to set off a nuke in the US, I would say apparently not, as one hasn't been set off yet, but just because something is not easy, does not mean it is impossible.

And yes, I think investing any amount of our worthless money is worth it to liberate other people from oppression. Not saying that is what the US is doing though. I understand our occupying nature at the moment.

Just because we recognize poverty doesn't mean we can fix it. Bad stuff happens; the US can't fix everything. Doesn't mean we don't feel for those people, but there's limits on what we can achieve. Our military is already stretched thin as it is; according to your proposal we'd be starting wars in 5 or so new countries.

The US and it's allies could make an effort to 'fix everything'. If it is the 'good fight' to fight oppression and not to just go after natural resources for our greedy selves, then I could see a more than willing alliance being formed. And I am not saying that we try to squash all the roaches at once. Patience and persistence.

We don't have the resources.

Do you really believe that? All the waste that goes on in this country and all the resources that are spent on destructive technology and you don't believe we have the resources for helping the oppressed? C'mon man.

I feel I will be leaving the Political forum, as I feel I am venturing into Anti-Christ advisor territory and after praying about it, I am content to let it all burn down as I feel it is God's will, and the only way to have humanity turn back to Him.

So Good morning, Godbless, and if I don't see you...Good night. :toast

LnGrrrR

08-17-2010, 12:46 PM

I am content to let it all burn down as I feel it is God's will, and the only way to have humanity turn back to Him.

Tsk tsk. That's not very Christian of you. After all, if you really have compassion for your fellow man, as the Good Book tells us too, then you should be more willing to try to spare them, wouldn't you? :)

As far as destructive technology, one would think that if anything were destructive, it would be guns and weapons of war. Yet you seem to think we should be using more of these to liberate peoples in other lands. How do you explain that dichotomy?

Nbadan

08-17-2010, 07:48 PM

...self-determination...the Iraqi people will be free when the US is gone and they get to vote for and in-power their own chosen leaders...that's the missing ingredient.....

Nbadan

08-17-2010, 08:02 PM

....if this thread had Angle-Luv instead of Bigsak it would have 20,000 hits by now.....

Parker2112

11-30-2010, 09:32 PM

Despite massive protests, US Senate passes S 510 Food Safety Bill

Mike Adams
NaturalNews (http://www.naturalnews.com/030576_Food_Safety_S_510.html)
November 30, 2010
The new Food Tyranny Act — called the “Food Safety Modernization Act” in the U.S. Senate — has been passed by the senate today. It would give the FDA vast ew powers to criminalize and imprison farmers and food producers while doing absolutely nothing to address to real root of the food contamination problem: Factory animal farm operations (which are regulated under the USDA, not the FDA).

The bill passed 73 to 25, with Sen Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) emerging as the greatest “voice of reason” in the debate. His last-ditch amendment to reduce the scale of the bill was defeated this morning.

Here’s the official vote record: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L… (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L…)

Notably, there wasn’t a single Democrat who opposed the bill.

Progress?

Wild Cobra

12-01-2010, 12:10 AM

The vote on this amendment is very telling and should be a concern, even to you libtards:

Amendment (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00256):

Statement of Purpose:

In the nature of a substitute, to modernize Federal food safety efforts without placing unnecessary burdens on food producers, increasing food prices, or saddling taxpayers with additional debt.

YEAs ---36
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brown (R-MA)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---62
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 2
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)