The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 3:33 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:16 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
But don't worry, it will be a selectively enforced law - so if you don't attract their attention you won't have to pay a 100,000 fine for baking a blueberry pie with your own berries and selling it at the church bake sale.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:10 am 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
It's actually pretty horrific.

http://www.care2.com/news/member/851334836/2432617

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:28 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... l=s111-510

Actual text of bill. Could be nasty depending on how it's enforced but im not seeing the outright ban some are claiming. Still has to pass the house too.

Disclaimer: the preceding is not an endorsement of the bil, just and attempt to insert facts into the situation.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:38 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Rorinthas:

You apparently didn't read the entire bill, because it is just as insidious and horrific as people are claiming. There's the change the liberals can believe in ...

Who wants to argue that the Democrats aren't a bunch of **** fascists now?

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
It's funny how liberals care so much about issues like gay rights but not the right to plant food. Also this seems unconstitutional.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:53 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Khross wrote:
Rorinthas:

You apparently didn't read the entire bill, because it is just as insidious and horrific as people are claiming. There's the change the liberals can believe in ...

Who wants to argue that the Democrats aren't a bunch of **** fascists now?

I didn't say it wasn't insidious I just said I didn't see an open ban. It just puts those gardens under federal oversight which yeah is pretty insidious. We can say the dems are being facist without resorting to sensationalism. There are plenty of real issues to deal with.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Last edited by Rorinthas on Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:55 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Its in the "manufacture" of manufacture, process, distribute...

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:56 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Elmarnieh wrote:
Its in the "manufacture" of manufacture, process, distribute...

Okay I'll have to take another look.


How does one even begin to enforce that though

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
It appears to apply only to "retail food establishments" and the definition of such has been expanded greatly, to include nearly anything. However, I don't see where sharing food is banned.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:06 pm 
Offline
Home of the Whopper
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:51 am
Posts: 6098
Quote:
It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.” Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.


Is this true?

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
This is honestly nothing new.

You guys do realize that, amongst many other things, pornography is functionally illegal in the US, and is just subject to selective prosecution whenever the moral crusaders get uppity, right?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:28 am 
Offline
Bru's Sweetie

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:04 am
Posts: 2675
Location: San Jose, CA
Okay, I am not a college graduate and I do not understand the legalese of this bill...can someone explain to me in simple English what this bill actually will do? Please and thank you!

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:22 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Xequecal wrote:
This is honestly nothing new.

You guys do realize that, amongst many other things, pornography is functionally illegal in the US, and is just subject to selective prosecution whenever the moral crusaders get uppity, right?

Most of that is done at a state and local level and on a case by case basis. That's why we have a legal system instead of automatic penalties for the most part.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
Yay for the commerce clause?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Jasmy,

This has been a hot topic around the office the last few days. Farmers Markets, and locally grown produce are 'in vogue' around these parts lately.

It's very difficult (probably impossible) to find an unbiased interpretation of the bill. All you can really do is find as many interpretations as you can and try to make some sense out of it.

I tried reading the exact language of the bill, but it's very confusing, and has so many cross references to other documents that it makes your head swim.

Here is a "Summary" from govtrack.us
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xp ... ab=summary

And here is the full text of the bill
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xp ... ab=summary

Both are too long to quote, so you'll probably just have to slog through that summary and see if you can find the shiny bits.

In the mean time, I found this site. The article was written before the senate passed it, so I don't know if it reflects exactly what was contained in it, but I think it's pretty close to what the Senate passed.

It's obviously biased, so don't let it be you're only take on it.

http://laughterandliberty.com/senate-bi ... d-sort-of/

laughterandliberty wrote:
Senate Bill S510 (FDA Food Safety Modernization Act) Explained:

When I heard about Senate Bill s510 I was completely freaked out. The first thing I heard about it was that it makes it illegal to grow your own food. I immediately got on the phone to call my senator about how OUTRAGED I was and why was he planning on putting my grandma in jail for that cute little patch of cucumbers she grows for her canned pickles! What kind of man likes to put grandmas in JAIL HUH? In fact, I think I will just go down there and tell him what an ******* he is in person!! But then I regained some of my brain cells and remembered that MY senator probably didn’t write the bill and took a journey down the rabbit hole to see what I could find out about this bill.

The first thing I found out was it doesn’t make growing your own food at home and eating it yourself illegal. PHHHEWWWW!! Grandma’s pickles are SAFE!! Then I started actually reading what WAS in the bill.

You will probably think this bill is a good thing. Unless you are one of those tin foil hat wearing weirdos who think you need rights and freedoms. It might even be better than that wonderful piece of extistence we call the Patriot Act (Don’t you LOVE that one?)

A couple pertinent facts on the bill include:

The original bill no longer exists. The new S510 is only one part of an amendment they kept. (Kinda makes you wonder how bad the first one was huh?) It also is only in committee, which means the senate has been asked to consider it. Will they vote on it? Why yes of course, otherwise the senate doesn’t care about the children. Did I mention the bill is sponsored by congressman Dingell?

but here is why you should be mad as hell and just aren’t going to take it anymore:

If you trade or give your food away, or sell it at farmers markets, you are no longer considered growing for personal consumption which puts you in a category as a Community Supported Agriculture supplier, or so you forget what it actually means CSA’s for short. This is a whole world of difference because now your food has to be “traceable” That means if your neighbor little sally walker has a tummy ache, you need to be held accountable for giving her those bacteria laden zucchinis. What it really means is a drive to the freshly built State Agriculture Office, to talk to the ladies who got promoted from the DMV to fill out a stack of paperwork the size of War and Peace, pay a handy little “CSA Liscensing fee” plus all the taxes and stuff of course, agree to surprise inspections, OH, and don’t forget that dollar to the blabbity blabb fund. By the way would you like to register to vote sir?

So in other words you don’t grow it yourself, you probably aren’t going to get to eat it. Which is going to make you a pretty big ball of sad if you get most of your fruits and veggies from farmers markets. Is this going to be the end of organic farming? No probably not directly or in the near future but farmers who can afford to give away 50% of their profits to the government to implement this bill will probably not going to be living in your town. And because of the lack of farmers putting their heirloom seed grown produce out there, we will eventually see a decline in the amount of heirloom seeds available to the public. The worst part though is the bill will directly affect pet and animal feed manufacturers as well, which means higher feed costs for farmers, which means you ain’t makin chicken wings for the backyard barbecue buddy. It’s all hot dogs from here. We will probably still get hamburgers for a while, but eventually hamburgers will be the price of steak, steak will be the price of lobster, lobster will be filled with oil.

So the question now is how much do you love freedom? And vegetables.

PS there is a counter part in the house of representatives to this bill called H.R. 2749 I haven’t checked it out but it may be cause for a part 2 and s510 could cost Americans $825 billion in 2010 alone


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Rorinthas wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
This is honestly nothing new.

You guys do realize that, amongst many other things, pornography is functionally illegal in the US, and is just subject to selective prosecution whenever the moral crusaders get uppity, right?

Most of that is done at a state and local level and on a case by case basis. That's why we have a legal system instead of automatic penalties for the most part.


It is a federal crime to transport obscene material across state lines. Since we're talking about the Internet, the "across state lines" part is a given. Several court cases have ruled that whether or not material is obscene is defined by the community standards in the place of consumption or sale. So for a pornographer to get busted all that needs to happen is for one person in a very religious rural Kansas town to subscribe to his content.

In fact, under the obscenity statutes, the vast majority of all Internet content is illegal. If it's considered obscene *anywhere* in the US, then it's not legal to put it on the Internet.

People need to stop getting worked up over laws like this. Selective enforcement is and has always been the norm and there are probably fifty laws you break every day that the government can legally arrest you on. "Rule of law" means jack ****. If enough of the populace thinks you should be in prison, the government will find a reason to put you there.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:11 pm 
Offline
Bru's Sweetie

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:04 am
Posts: 2675
Location: San Jose, CA
Midgen,

Thank you! I will take a look at that when I get back from *shudder* shopping!

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Xequecal wrote:
Rorinthas wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
This is honestly nothing new.

You guys do realize that, amongst many other things, pornography is functionally illegal in the US, and is just subject to selective prosecution whenever the moral crusaders get uppity, right?

Most of that is done at a state and local level and on a case by case basis. That's why we have a legal system instead of automatic penalties for the most part.


It is a federal crime to transport obscene material across state lines. Since we're talking about the Internet, the "across state lines" part is a given. Several court cases have ruled that whether or not material is obscene is defined by the community standards in the place of consumption or sale. So for a pornographer to get busted all that needs to happen is for one person in a very religious rural Kansas town to subscribe to his content.

In fact, under the obscenity statutes, the vast majority of all Internet content is illegal. If it's considered obscene *anywhere* in the US, then it's not legal to put it on the Internet.

People need to stop getting worked up over laws like this. Selective enforcement is and has always been the norm and there are probably fifty laws you break every day that the government can legally arrest you on. "Rule of law" means jack ****. If enough of the populace thinks you should be in prison, the government will find a reason to put you there.


I thought you supported taking money from rich people when "enough of the populace" thinks they don't deserve it?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:12 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Xequecal wrote:
People need to stop getting worked up over laws like this. Selective enforcement is and has always been the norm and there are probably fifty laws you break every day that the government can legally arrest you on.


Those two sentences are entirely contradictory.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Lex Luthor wrote:
I thought you supported taking money from rich people when "enough of the populace" thinks they don't deserve it?


I'm not sure what your point is, taxing the rich isn't even unconstitutional, if 51% of the populace decides the "rich" aren't allowed to have any money then it will be taken from them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:16 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Xequecal wrote:
Lex Luthor wrote:
I thought you supported taking money from rich people when "enough of the populace" thinks they don't deserve it?


I'm not sure what your point is, taxing the rich isn't even unconstitutional, if 51% of the populace decides the "rich" aren't allowed to have any money then it will be taken from them.



More like 75% of active voters. (You'd need a constitutional ammendment.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Xequecal wrote:
Lex Luthor wrote:
I thought you supported taking money from rich people when "enough of the populace" thinks they don't deserve it?


I'm not sure what your point is, taxing the rich isn't even unconstitutional, if 51% of the populace decides the "rich" aren't allowed to have any money then it will be taken from them.


So it's ok to take people's money with arbitrary taxes but not ok to restrict their vegetable transactions?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Talya wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Lex Luthor wrote:
I thought you supported taking money from rich people when "enough of the populace" thinks they don't deserve it?


I'm not sure what your point is, taxing the rich isn't even unconstitutional, if 51% of the populace decides the "rich" aren't allowed to have any money then it will be taken from them.



More like 75% of active voters. (You'd need a constitutional ammendment.)


You would not need a constitutional amendment to set the income tax rate to 100% above a certain threshold, lets say $250,000. In fact several Presidents in history have seriously proposed a 100% tax on income over a certain level as serious policy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Lex Luthor wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Lex Luthor wrote:
I thought you supported taking money from rich people when "enough of the populace" thinks they don't deserve it?


I'm not sure what your point is, taxing the rich isn't even unconstitutional, if 51% of the populace decides the "rich" aren't allowed to have any money then it will be taken from them.


So it's ok to take people's money with arbitrary taxes but not ok to restrict their vegetable transactions?


What I think is ok is irrelevant. I don't even really have an opinion on this law as I haven't even read it, I'm just pointing out that if it really does work as described it's not the end of the world, it's exactly the same as 100 laws that came before it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:31 pm 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Even so, you know what they say about digging yourself into a hole. The first step is to stop digging.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 269 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group