Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to Obama these new illegals, oops, I mean refugees, are some of the "best and the brightest". Plucking chickens would certainly be beneath these future doctors, lawyers, CEOs, CIOs, CFOs, STEM educated, entrepreneurs that are so needed in the US because Americans are lazy, uneducated, unskilled and don't have the motivation and ambition to strive to do better.
LOL..the US plan of sending chickens to China to be processed and sent back will put illegals here in the US out of work
Now we have jobs that illegals don't want to do !!!
Yeah, but your whole argument is strawman hyperbole.
Conservative: We need less regulation.
Shabazz: Oh so you think we need to take down all street lights and abolish the penal code.
I'm not making a strawman I'm just asking for specifics Mathguy. The Food and Drug Administration regulations food safety. So my question is simple and relevant. How does "conservatives" see this government agency? Is it a job killer making too much regulation, is the FDA doing an adequate job, or does there need to be changes and if so what?
When you start linking what I stated with taking down "street lights" and abolishing the "penal code" you start down a slippery path of half truths...
Just like you as you rail against conservatives and deregulation in a thread about tainted Chinese meat lol
Please stop.
I was asked a specific question and when I gave a specific answer you're trying to move the goal post again...
What it comes down to is conservatives such as yourself tend to be against regulation. Tainted meat can be a side effect of reducing regulation of food processing... You made your bed now sleep...
I'm not making a strawman I'm just asking for specifics Mathguy. The Food and Drug Administration regulations food safety. So my question is simple and relevant. How does "conservatives" see this government agency? Is it a job killer making too much regulation, is the FDA doing an adequate job, or does there need to be changes and if so what?
When you start linking what I stated with taking down "street lights" and abolishing the "penal code" you start down a slippery path of half truths...
It's about the same as all federal agencies. They shirk their responsibilities and then try and blame it on their not being enough regulations. Five million new laws do nothing if they are not enforced.
I'm not making a strawman I'm just asking for specifics Mathguy. The Food and Drug Administration regulations food safety. So my question is simple and relevant. How does "conservatives" see this government agency? Is it a job killer making too much regulation, is the FDA doing an adequate job, or does there need to be changes and if so what?
When you start linking what I stated with taking down "street lights" and abolishing the "penal code" you start down a slippery path of half truths...
Actually it wasn't a half truth because you are starting from an argument that peoples arguments in favor of less regulation would:
a) be directed at the FDA
b) be of sufficient scope and depth to lead to tainted meat outbreaks and lead paint in childrens toys. (Back in post #2 where you were back slapping with the OP about conservatives. lol)
You've SINCE narrowed your question, which you should have started with in the first place.
P.S. I just hit you with the same sort of strawman hyperbole that you started with....glad you enjoyed it.
I have no specific wide raning opinion on the topic as I think that's foolish.
On a case by case basis, there needs to be common sense applied. However, even if you make reasoned changes someone is going to make huge political hay if something bad happens. That's why politicians prefer to jsut spend to CYA as much as possible because that's a popular move if not responsible.
But hey, don't worry...the FDA is on the job and I'm sure that under the wise and just decision making of the MONSANTO CEO that Obama put in charge of the FDA...that they will continue to look out for the best interests of the consumer and not benefit the corporate profits that you were just so concerned about in the first couple posts of the thread.
Bwahhhhhh hah hah hah.....
What's next? Make one of the Koch Brothers the global warming and renewable energy czar?
there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes–especially for the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.
Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.
I was asked a specific question and when I gave a specific answer you're trying to move the goal post again...
What it comes down to is conservatives such as yourself tend to be against regulation. Tainted meat can be a side effect of reducing regulation of food processing... You made your bed now sleep...
This your post, it is the first reply to the o.p.:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310
The supply side conservatives are getting exactly what they asked for...
It has nothing to do with Chinese meat and it was in no way a response to any question you were asked.You moved the goal post within the first response.
This your post, it is the first reply to the o.p.:
It has nothing to do with Chinese meat and it was in no way a response to any question you were asked.You moved the goal post within the first response.
Im also not a conservative.
You could hold the same beliefs and be a liberal in 1800, a conservative in 1960 and a libertarian in 2014.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
