Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: August 02 2010 at 20:09
I'm questioning his nutritional information thing. Now, stating the ingredients of what is in the product may be in the best interest of a company if it gets people interested in it, but what's to stop them from embellishing a little bit, and a little bit more, and so on? As long as there's no major watershed they cross where public opinion screws them over big time, then it seems they're in the clear with lying about their product. They could probably avoid a class action suit by clever or vague wording on the product, and since a lot of consumers aren't very keen on examining every little inch of their product, the manufacturers could get away with a lot while maintaining overall public trust.
I took a poly sci course and I learned that the
more authoritarian and manipulative of the country a president was, the
better he was.
Depends on how one defines "better" but is that new idea a new one? Didn't Machiavelli pretty much say that exact thing? And it probably goes back much farther, just not written down.
Machiavelli was talking the most efficient way to rule, for the ruler.
Just because the idea was written about doesn't make it right.
Of course, OK I got overly wordy again... but that is what I was basically trying to say. And all joking aside, no one sees someone that is extremely powerful and manipulative as a good leader. Yeah they can do things, and get info twisted, propaganda all that....but no one actually says "I like that guy. He is Machiavelli's price to the T! Hell be an iron fisted tyrant"
Internet screwy, thank god it did come, makes online classes a bit difficult....
Anywho, the FDA thing is like most others. I dont think anyone would say its bad in theory (or purpose) and it served a need originally. The question is, needed in 2010? Can we trust these people with our food to make sure its fine? Well, we all know my trust in them is low to begin with, and I wouldn't want to find out while dealing with my food. But sadly, have to do this work I've missed a few hours on.
Internet screwy, thank god it did come, makes online classes a bit difficult....
Anywho, the FDA thing is like most others. I dont think anyone would say its bad in theory (or purpose) and it served a need originally. The question is, needed in 2010? Can we trust these people with our food to make sure its fine? Well, we all know my trust in them is low to begin with, and I wouldn't want to find out while dealing with my food. But sadly, have to do this work I've missed a few hours on.
Peace
Grow your own food then.
The FDA didn't protect my wife and me from food poisoning when we bought some fried chicken a couple years ago.
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Posted: August 02 2010 at 20:56
JJLehto wrote:
You ever been to a gay wedding? Its a blast! OK, I never have......but possibly soon actually.
And quite a few people here seem to have seen the error of their ways How many of you are ex-liberals?
I'm an ex-conservative.
thellama73 wrote:
All poli sci majors are prone generalizations.
Ahem, poli-sci-major-constantly-arguing-people-must-be-treated-as-individuals here. Division and class warfare might be the way to built a loyal voting base but I don't go for all that bs.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: August 02 2010 at 20:59
JJLehto wrote:
Internet screwy, thank god it did come, makes online classes a bit difficult....
Anywho, the FDA thing is like most others. I dont think anyone would say its bad in theory (or purpose) and it served a need originally. The question is, needed in 2010? Can we trust these people with our food to make sure its fine? Well, we all know my trust in them is low to begin with, and I wouldn't want to find out while dealing with my food. But sadly, have to do this work I've missed a few hours on.
Peace
I'll say it.
It's a monstrosity in theory and purpose. It's as irrelevant now as it always has been.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Internet screwy, thank god it did come, makes online classes a bit difficult....
Anywho, the FDA thing is like most others. I dont think anyone would say its bad in theory (or purpose) and it served a need originally. The question is, needed in 2010? Can we trust these people with our food to make sure its fine? Well, we all know my trust in them is low to begin with, and I wouldn't want to find out while dealing with my food. But sadly, have to do this work I've missed a few hours on.
Peace
Grow your own food then.
Would be nice. We have a small property Used to grow tomatoes for a while, of course the year we decide to start doing it again it hasnt rained in god knows how long.
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
Posted: August 02 2010 at 21:12
JJLehto wrote:
Anywho, the FDA thing is like most others. I dont think anyone would say its bad in theory (or purpose) and it served a need originally. The question is, needed in 2010? Can we trust these people with our food to make sure its fine? Well, we all know my trust in them is low to begin with, and I wouldn't want to find out while dealing with my food. But sadly, have to do this work I've missed a few hours on.
Peace
Can we trust corporations, without FDA oversight, to give a damn? Given that routinely about 16 billion pounds of ground beef are recalled monthly, I think there needs to be some sort of enforcer. The alternative is a new enforcer, also known as lawyers, that bankrupt every business who dares allow crap to enter the food chain. So is FDA needed? That's a good question, but the alternative ain't pretty. I would guess there would be no contaminated food recalls without the FDA 'suggesting' it's a good idea. Typical corporation response, without the FDA, would be, "e. Coli? Bah, let them sh*t fire out their asses for a couple of days."
Edited by jammun - August 02 2010 at 21:13
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Posted: August 02 2010 at 21:14
Here is a short FDA debate:
Representing the libertarian perspective - John Stossel and his powerstache
Representing the control/central power perspective - Bill "the folks" O'Reilly
What's fun about this is that Slarti and The T are going to have to agree with Bill O'Reilly if they truely love their central authorities. Hope being one of Bill's "folks" doesn't make your heads explode
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: August 02 2010 at 21:15
^^ I don't understand how so many people in this thread think that the main objective of big corporations is to lose all their customers through evil misdeeds.
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: August 02 2010 at 21:17
manofmystery wrote:
Here is a short FDA debate:
Representing the libertarian perspective - John Stossel and his powerstache
Representing the control/central power perspective - Bill "the folks" O'Reilly
What's fun about this is that Slarti and The T are going to have to agree with Bill O'Reilly if they truely love their central authorities. Hope being one of Bill's "folks" doesn't make your heads explode
Bill O'Reilly, in his old age, has become one step away from a fascist, wanting to impose his personal will on everyone else. It's remarkable that the left see him as an uber-conservative.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: August 02 2010 at 21:23
jammun wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
Anywho, the FDA thing is like most others. I dont think anyone would say its bad in theory (or purpose) and it served a need originally. The question is, needed in 2010? Can we trust these people with our food to make sure its fine? Well, we all know my trust in them is low to begin with, and I wouldn't want to find out while dealing with my food. But sadly, have to do this work I've missed a few hours on.
Peace
Can we trust corporations, without FDA oversight, to give a damn? Given that routinely about 16 billion pounds of ground beef are recalled monthly, I think there needs to be some sort of enforcer. The alternative is a new enforcer, also known as lawyers, that bankrupt every business who dares allow crap to enter the food chain. So is FDA needed? That's a good question, but the alternative ain't pretty. I would guess there would be no contaminated food recalls without the FDA 'suggesting' it's a good idea. Typical corporation response, without the FDA, would be, "e. Coli? Bah, let them sh*t fire out their asses for a couple of days."
Yes this is a business practice which will cause consumers to chose your product over the alternative. Your company will definitely turn a profit from the law suites which follow.
Have you ever wondered why Ford recruited Robert McNamara to examine automobile fatalities? Ford, free from government coercion, financed the invention of the seatbelt and installed it in their cars. Why didn't they adopt your illogical attitude towards their consumers?
It's time we end this failed notion of producers preying like vultures on consumers and appreciate the mutual benefit which really occurs and is ultimately driven by the consumer.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Posted: August 02 2010 at 21:25
I have no problem considering him a conservative. I do have a problem with the left thinking that he is any different than they are. They both want to impose their personal beliefs on everyone else, they just disagree on the beliefs.
This is where we fail in modern politics: your average voter doesn't see (or refuses to see) liberty as an option, just differing varieties of control, and they have learned to accept it.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: August 02 2010 at 21:30
And both sides equivocate so that this control amounts to freedom. Or in the rare occasion freedom is being openly mitigated they of course show you how it's necessary to keep you safe.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.449 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
For my Libertarian friends
Topic Options
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
