Why does Newt hate the Constitution?

Obama has been doing a pretty good job of that.

He has?

here's a list of Obama's 17 signing statements.
http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm

And here's a list of Bush's signing statements - 85 in his first three years.
http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm

Regardless of how you perceive the egregiousness of some - any - of the statements, that's a HUGE gap. What are your problems with Obama's?

Egregious. Good word.

I really am curious, merc. As a left-winger far enough left to have huge problems with Obama's presidency from the opposite side as you, I'm all ears as to how Obama has abused signing statements. I haven't seen any stories in the news or among the libertarian blogs I follow noting Obama's use of signing statements, so I'd really like to know what I've missed about them.

I never said Bush didn't use them. Bush is not in office and has not been there for three years. Here is what King Obama said during his run up to the crown:



http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...ism_reign.html

The signing statement are constitutionally not authorized, regardless of who does them.

If the AmericanThinker.com citation was honest, then it would have listed each signing statement. No examples provided. It does what any wacko extremist and Limbaugh disciple does.

If AmericanThinker.com had credibility, then facts about "Pres Obama" were cited. Instead, Repeatedly reference to "King Barack", as if that proves something, targets readers with lowest intelligence and educaton.

AmericanThinker.com says nothing about signing statements. But says everything about the intelligence of anyone who would cite it as responsible or honest. Only the dumbest among us would use the expression "King Obama" as proof of something. Especially when Fatherland Security, torture, and contempt for humanity comes from supporters of AmericanThinker.com.

Where are signing statments listed? That topic was irrelevant. Only Tea Party extremists and Limbaugh disciples would love articles that inspire more hate. The topic is signing statements - not a mockery of educated Americans and Obama.

The Obama Dept of Justice is doing something right...

Washington Post
Jerry Markon
12/23/11

Justice Dept. rejects South Carolina voter ID law, calling it discriminatory

Well I don't see a problem with it.

I have to show my ID to vote, to get on an Airplane, often to use my credit or debit card, to get on to post, to buy at the PX, to cash a check, to by a beer or liquor, to the police if I get stopped, to get on a cruise ship, to go into another country, hell where do you not have to show one. And these mother fuckers are worried about showing one to vote. What load of horse shit.......

Merc, not everyone carries their military-issued ID in their pocket the way you do.
... Obtaining the "proper" or "valid" pictured ID can be difficult and/or time critical.

To get the proper state-issued, photo ID now,
with all the hoopla required by Homeland Security it can be / is very difficult.
The problem is complexity...especially for the elderly, the poor, the minorities, etc.

Some of the issues I have heard about are:

Hospital-issued "birth certificates" are no longer valid or accepted

... to be valid, the birth certificate must be issued by the State Dept of Vital Statistics (or whatever)

... if a woman is divorced, she must also show the state-issued divorce papers, and proper name-change legal papers

... if any birth date, name, etc are not the same on all papers, it can derail the process.

... if any of the above occurred in separate states, it can be difficult

... In Oregon, and I'll bet it is or will be the same in other states,
in order to get a new Driver's license, not only do you have to show all of the above,
you also have to paperwork to show you are legally entitled to live in the US,
and that you do actually live at a particular address in Oregon (utility bill, rent payment receipt, etc.)

Then, a person often also has to register to vote, and in some state this is required prior to the day of voting.

"Voter fraud" is almost non-existant, but it is the excuse for these new laws.

Basically, the Republican Party knows it is a minority party,
and so sets about to disqualify poor and/or minority voters,
or to make the process so difficult they don't vote.
.

Difficult, not impossible. This is not a race issue although that seems to be the flavor of the season when ever someone disagrees with the Demoncratic party or the president.

As you point out, it's not a race issue... it is Civil Rights being abused by Repubicans.
Race is just one of the elephants in the room.

It is the same shit that is going on in Wisconsin right now. Dirty politics.

Unless Republicans can show that requiring a photo ID like a driver's license instead of the current system will lower voter fraud, I honestly see no other point of it besides preventing people who will statistically more likely vote Democrat from voting.

None of those are deemed citizen privileges. Being able to vote is right in the US. Flying, using credit, buying liquor, going to different countries, etc, are not.

Merc, it would be a load of shit if that were the only thing going on. Republicans are trying to use this as a method of evening the vote in areas where there are more Dem voters. That's really not democracy in action. sure I can understand people wanting to "win", but hey, if you don't like the outcome of the voters then..well, wait till the next election. Don't try to figure out ways to exclude voters.

I agree, voting is far more important than any of those other things.
If it weren't for the political BS that started this, I would agree wholeheartedly with one
having to provide a picture ID to vote. The system should be more secure.
Perhaps we could agree to do it in the future - say as of the 2016 election.

As far as how hard it is to get a picture ID. I call MAJOR BS.
Getting a passport is supposedly much harder. I had to accrue my original Birth Certificate
(which I apparently never had) as well as a couple other things.
Sent it away and got the passport in a few weeks. It was a completely painless process.

That is what some of these voter laws are calling for now...
ID's that are the equivalent of a US passport.
Painless maybe, but overly complicated and time consuming

Will everyone know they had to do all that in order to vote,
and will everyone have started the process in time to vote ?
Not likely, and that's what the Republican legislatures are counting on.

except where it is hyped as a major crime wave to advance a political agenda. If voter fraud was serious, then he has posted numbers that prove it. He won't. Political agendas are promoted by subjective claims. Such claims without numbers are best called lies.

Of course, we could eliminate 100% voter fraud. It's easy. We all learn to goose step. And we all salute the flag with one arm raised straight up above.

Voter fraud is a crime sufficiently eliminated by following the existing and well proven procedures. But that does not promote bogeymen to inspire and rally extremists.

Actual problem is not voter fraud. The real problem is identity theft. Solving the latter does not create fear and promote a political agenda.

What indication is there that getting necessary paperwork is more difficult for a Democrat than a Republican?

How does this necessitate the big "racism" elephant in the room?

I am not seeing the connection here.

I would guess that the reason this law is suggested to benefit Republicans is that minorities and the poor are less likely to have photo ID's and are more likely to vote Democratic.

Why?

Photo ID's can be costly, time consuming, and sometimes difficult to obtain. Even more so for women.

For example, I cannot renew my driver's license unless I can obtain a copy of my marriage certificate from 30 years ago. I don't even remember where I got married, we did it spur of the moment while on a road trip. The originals are long lost during around-the-world moves. He and I divorced decades ago, but I have to recreate a document trail. So let's assume I know right where to get it, the cost is usually $20 or so for a copy. Then I have to get a copy of the divorce decree as well (but at least I know where to find that one). That's another $20. A certified copy of my birth certificate is $50. There you have $90...and for what? I need a driver's license, but what about grandma? Or an unemployed person who lost their home? Or a student who has recently moved? Are they going to go through the expense and time and effort just to VOTE? :eek:

The NY Times today has a 4-page article about a man who investigated Fannie Mae
on his own and found abuses and illegal procedures long before the housing crisis.

There is a lot of repetition in the article, but the gist seems to be that
"mortage servicing companies" were playing lose and fast (an illegally) with their duties and responsibilities.
Investigations by this man and others were given to Fannie Mae, but it is unclear
that the contents of the reports made their way up to the Board of Directors.

It's an interesting read...

NY Times
GRETCHEN MORGENSON
February 4, 2012
A Mortgage Tornado Warning, Unheeded

This is one more reason Libertarian politics ultimately just don't work ...IRL :greenface

CBS
February 3, 2012 5:42 PM

Raw Milk Popular In Maryland Despite Being Illegal

So Obama,,, what have you done for me lately ????

NY Times
By SHAILA DEWAN and NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
2/5/12

Deal Is Closer for a U.S. Plan on Mortgage Relief

Shock!

sure ... I'll believe that when it happens. I'm sure the election year has nothing to do with this diversion...

Oh, and how many convictions of their executives so far?

Oh, tel un cynique ! ;)
.

I obviously disagree. I drink raw milk and consume homemade yogurt and cheese made from it daily. I do not however buy it from a dairy using the same unsanitary practices as pasteurized homogenized producers. Raw milk cheeses are very popular in France, a place where people actually like actual food. Libertarianism is about taking personal responsibility rather than passing responsibility off on the corporate/government syndicate that controls much of our food production.

One round of cheddar right out of the cellar and the refrigerator stocked with raw milk, homegrown/made eggs, apple sauce, yogurt, cheese and local turkey.

(The issue in this specific case is milk; not cheese, not eggs, not other)

Prey tell, how does the consumer take responsibility for the quality of milk they purchase ?

The farmer in Pennsylvania that produced this batch of tainted raw milk was devastated,
wrote a letter of apology to his customers, and offered a refund on the milk they had purchased.
Maybe this farmer took responsibility, and may end up losing his business.

..Still 40+ other people became ill in PA and surrounding states in the first round of infections.
Camplylobacter is infectious (diarrhea) so there well could be a others.
Do you propose those all those primary and secondary infections also take responsibility onto themselves ?

I have absolutely no issue with you (or anyone) disagreeing with me on self-responsibility for themself (only).
I do have issue with it when it can not extend far enough to protect others.
.

Massive outbreak of antimicrobial-resistant salmonellosis traced to pasteurized milk.
Ryan CA, Nickels MK, Hargrett-Bean NT, Potter ME, Endo T, Mayer L, Langkop CW, Gibson C, McDonald RC, Kenney RT, et al.
Source

Division of Bacterial Diseases, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA 30333.
Abstract

Two waves of antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella typhimurium infections in Illinois totaling over 16 000 culture-confirmed cases were traced to two brands of pasteurized 2% milk produced by a single dairy plant. Salmonellosis was associated with taking antimicrobials before onset of illness. Two surveys to determine the number of persons who were actually affected yielded estimates of 168 791 and 197 581 persons, making this the largest outbreak of salmonellosis ever identified in the United States. The epidemic strain was easily identified because it had a rare antimicrobial resistance pattern and a highly unusual plasmid profile; study of stored isolates showed it had caused clusters of salmonellosis during the previous ten months that may have been related to the same plant, suggesting that the strain had persisted in the plant and repeatedly contaminated milk after pasteurization.

PMID:
3316720
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Maybe we should just ban pasteurized milk as well?
I understand your concern, but you are attacking people's life choices. Some of us are not excited by the idea of a supposedly risk free world bought by a simple exchange of personal liberty/choice. To me, it is very much the same as the War on Terror, there is always a cost for a nominal increase in safety. In this case, we create a (n awful tasting) biological blank slate which, given opportunity, salmonella easily inhabits. This kind of stuff is why rural America votes Republican, despite Democratic protestations that it is against their interests. The left does not understand what other people value or simply dismiss those values as not rational.

or I could be completely off base. ;)

There are two key phrases being overlooked in the above report summary:
"a single dairy plant" and "the strain had persisted in the plant
and repeatedly contaminated milk after pasteurization"

Generally, I would suggest the "after" means "after", not "despite" or "resistant to" pasteurization.
A follow up of that report would be interesting to see if they identified a specific source or procedure that failed.

I quibble with that idea of secondary infections would be due to "failure of universal precautions".
Universal precautions (to me) are hospital procedures.
In the "raw milk" story, such infections could be family members, school mates, etc. and occur before the "primaries" are apparent.

I frown on, but would not prohibit, a family from milking their own goats, cows, etc
for exclusive use of their own family because I assume parents will look
to the best interests of their own children.

But a business has other motivations and selling such a product risks the spread of disease into the public,
even more so if one is advocating NO government oversight such as inspections, testing, etc.

I didn't over look that a single dairy plant had 16,000 proven and between 168,791 and 197,581 actual cases, much as you didn't overlook that this single farm caused 40+cases. Increased scale/consolidation is one of those unintended consequences which advocates of regulation tend to ignore. I also didn't ignore that this occurred after pasteurization much as meat can easily be contaminated after being radiated. The once sterile food gives a false idea of security leading to less care in final packaging.

Universal precautions are SOP in schools and day cares.

Even you admit that the farm in question is essentially out of business, so the profit over people line of thought is nonsense. Small farms (which are regulated btw) are not like Cargil they can't just switch plants when things go bad. I never said no oversight, but we could argue about the best way to do that when I'm not so tired.

I frown on feel good bans that limit what others can do.

Agreed... Peace

When enough people get sick from these farms, even those democrat despising republicans will be clamoring for regulations/bans.

Oh, I don't know, there was no clamor to ban spinach or Jack-in-the-Box when they were killing people.

...from my cold dead bloated hand.

Red No. 1

Your choices can and do impact others. When you get sick, you use the healthcare system. This will absolutely have an inflationary impact on me. It will either increase my insurance price, my taxes, or my self-paid healtcare prices.

I'm with you, Griff. Didn't have time to jump in, but you said everything I could have. I'm Clodfobble, and I approve this message.

As did the hundreds of thousands who still got sick off of pasteurized products. The missing data point is, next to 40 ill people, how many people are safely consuming these raw farm products, compared to how many sickened/unsickened mass-factory consumers there are.

I just posted because regulations/bans are not brought about solely by democrats. Look at bans on gay marriage and the fight to ban abortions or even the the right to work laws which ban union dues.

It's even probable that the fight to ban these types of milk farms are probably being egged on by the big factory dairy farms themselves (repubs, for sure) to discourage competition.

Clod, I hope your remark above was exaggeration only for impact... otherwise I call BS.

I realize public health statistics are not convincing to the believers.
But here is a link that summarizes another link (downloads a pdf)
on disease outbreaks in the U.S. during the past year.

85% of Outbreaks and Illnesses from Milk Products were traced
to Raw Milk or 60-day Aged Raw Milk Cheeses in the Last 18 Months

The details are in the pdf of that download. There is risk in discussing
the numbers of illness cases because cases depend on the size of each dairy's clientele.
Basically the numbers outbreaks are very small (14 raw / 1 pasterized),
but the numbers of dairies and the amounts of dairy products are hugely disproportionate.

A Libertarian argument against government intervention denies
the world's history and the impact of pasteurization and vaccination.
It was the futility of such a Libertarian view that was my original point in these posts.
.

I was specifically referencing this part from Griff's link:

This is what I was already saying, when I referred to the "missing data point." The other problem with any debate of this nature is how to factor in the additional effects of pasteurizing products, beyond pathogenic infection.

The human species is dependent on symbiotic relationships with "good" species of bacteria for a number of biological functions, and it may turn out that indiscrimately wiping out bacteria in our lives will eventually cause a species-wide health crisis (say, for example, the skyrocketing rate of autoimmune diseases.)

No one can say for sure what the overall impact of such a policy will be--it may be that we're not as good at killing things as we'd like to believe, and our efforts won't really matter, or it may be that those individuals who depend more on this symbiosis will die out, and the species will evolve to match the new environment we've created.

Regardless, if your argument is really that people should be forcibly protected from making themselves sick, can I assume that you are also in favor of outlawing tobacco, and enforcing government-mandated dietary guidelines for all obese citizens?

I start from the premise that some form of government is required for a modern society.

That government should/must do what people cannot or will not do for themselves.
Therefore, government must regulate certain activities in which others will/can/may be harmed.

Thus since not everyone can be a self sufficient farmer, the distribution of safe
food products to the public is valid regulation by government.
Therefore, the Libertarian premise of no government intervention is doomed to fail.

I do also subscribe to the notion of the most good to the most people.
Therefore, not all people will be happy or unaffected by governmental actions,
and a smaller number may even be negatively affected.
(That's the reason I include vaccinations as a legitimate activity of government ... to protect
the greatest number possible,while doing unavoidable harm to the smallest number possible.
It's also my reason for concern over the current activities fracking for production of natural gas.

For the examples you mention (tobacco and obesity),
the latter is a gray area still open for discussion.
We don't yet know if a better informed public will deal with the problem.
But the former is now clear, the tobacco industry was lying about
the safety of tobacco and making a profit based on that lie,
so government intervention is/was justified.
Likewise, since children cannot make their own decisions,
government legitimately forbids them from certain activities.

Of course, the survivalist way of life would avoid these issues,
but living in modern society does have a cost.
.

Government intervention, in the case of tobacco, was suing the tobacco companies for lying, and making them print facts about the deadliness of smoking on their packets. So does that mean you're fine with the sale of raw milk to consumers who specifically prefer it, as long as there is a big Surgeon General's warning on the bottle?

For the record, I'm not in favor of pure Libertarianism as a form of government myself. But it seems really obvious to me that you are cherry-picking examples "in need" of regulation when exponentially larger and more destructive examples are readily available. People who chose to smoke in the past might "deal with the problem," now that they are better informed? People who are obese might "deal with the problem" if only they were aware of the dangers of a high-carb, refined-sugar diet? Honestly?

The Ohio Casinos will not allow smokers to work there. OK.

As far as I know, a 400 pound cheeseburger-monger can.

A raging alcoholic can. (Well NO not on the job.)

Meh. It's easier to single out the 'evil' people than it is single out the 'pure and good' people. Whatever that is.

.

Ooh, I've got an even better image of an unusual milk dispenser. In Igls, Austria, there is a small dairy farm with a spigot outide. You can bring your own containers and fill them with milk 24 hours a day. I got a picture, but don't have any of the details of the operation.

Neat. Can you find the pic?

In part I believe banning tobacco completely would be similar to what happened in Prohibition.
So a modicum of practicality was to force the labeling of packages
and the extra efforts to diverting young people from starting.
The drug wars are what we got with an outright bans.
I've said before I frown on the sale of raw dairy products because
the layman cannot know the quality or safety of each purchase.

I guess I'm missing the "obvious... and larger and more destructive examples".
Tobacco and obesity were not my original topic... but vaccination was mine.
Is that what you mean about cherry picking ?

For the above "deal with the problem" issues, I'm not certain of your meaning.
In my post, I had in mind that if customers (such as fast food places)
have no information they have no choice or alternatives.
But if the McD's of the world are required to publish such data,
maybe people will use it. I don't know if they will or won't.
Maybe it's too early for more restrictive government intervention, maybe not.
Likewise if school lunches are unhealthy, the timing may be urgent, or not. I don't know.
Is that what you were getting at ?

Now I'm doubting my memory. I was pretty sure there was a spigot, but now I don't see one. Maybe this is just a storage locker. But it's also possible I saw the door open and there was a spigot inside, and I just don't have a picture of that.

But anyway, here it is. In Europe, they often have barns in the village center like this, and the animals are led out of the village to graze. This barn had cows in it that you could see lined up when the door was open. You can see plenty of evidence of them.
Attachment 37221
Attachment 37222
Attachment 37223

Attachment 37224
Attachment 37225

Look, Lamplighter, just stop meandering for two seconds and answer a direct question.

Do you support a legal ban on the practice of farms selling raw milk, or is your reaction simply limited to frowning?

I cannot continue any discussion with you until you clearly state how you feel about this topic. One sentence will suffice.

OK, make me king and I'll ban raw milk.

Funny, I was about to come over all regal. Well, I'll do it anyway.


Harken, ye people, for I am King ZenGum, and I give unto you these laws:

You can sell whatever you like, from raw goats' milk to refined sugar, fish oil to cocaine.

You can buy whatever you like. Pay honestly.

You must be honest about what you sell. No sticking "organic" or "pasteurised" labels on things that aren't.

The government will establish certain standards for weights, measures and - here is the tricky bit - certain qualities.
For example, some things have to be done right, such as pasteurisation. The government will establish the appropriate standard, and people who wish to follow this may do so and thus earn the right to add a sticker to their product announcing that their product has been produced according to the standard. This sticker will have a big G.A. for Government Approved, and a picture of a nanny, just to make it clear. Falsely using this sticker will get you smote with great vengance and righteous fury. See rule 3.

But! If you don't want to follow the government standard, you don't have to. Do it your own way, be honest about what you did.

People can buy whichever they prefer.

Cool?

Which works in some industries and cannot be done in others. No standard applies to all industries. Some (ie Tobacco, investment bankers, stock brokers) have such bad reputations that heavy government regulation is necessary. Another (ie computer industry) needs almost no regulation due to its history.

Milk must meet standards such as six sigma quality. If any part of that industry repeatedly screws its customers, then the entire industry has earned the necessary regulations. Some industries turn a blind eye to their bad boys. Others do not want regulation and enforce industry standards. Therefore go after their bad boys with a vengeance.

A standard that must apply even to milk. Another industry that earned the regulations it deserves. The amount of regulation required is unique to every industry. What works for one can be completely unacceptable for another.

Then you're a huge hypocrite, unless your second and third edicts as king are to also ban tobacco and high fructose corn syrup. Your Libertarian policy of letting everyone smoke and eat whatever they want even when it's dangerous for them has gone on too long!


Me, I'm gonna vote for King ZenGum. Especially if he's instituting prima nocta!

As long as the same policy applies on uni-gender marriage, abortion, and sex toys.

Ooooww, that hurt.

Frankly I was expecting a whole lot better ...

AND FURTHERMORE, STOP MAKING YOUR KIDS SMOKE CIGARETTES.

Sheesh. You think you'd done learned by now.

Ma and Pa Earth have left the logic building.

I'm not sure why. You keep telling me you don't understand anything I'm saying anyway, how do you know I didn't actually meet your expectations?

It's a simple analogy.

Raw milk = tobacco = high fructose corn syrup.

All three are potentially dangerous, but all three have certain desirable benefits to the people who choose to use them.

I think all three should be legal, with people taking personal responsibility for using them. You think one of them should be banned, but the other two are somehow okay.

Does that make sense?