And people wonder why I'm against regulation... (crime, gun, 2014)
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.
Remember, liberals defend the war on cheese and raw milk, but insist that prostitution is a "victimless crime" and should not be a crime.
They defend the guns and swat teams pointing guns at the Bundy's... but claim we prosecute "victimless crimes".
They defend the "guns drawn, doors bashed down" approach to Gibson guitars over some wood... but argue we have prisons full of people who have committed "victimless crimes".
When you are a liberal, you actually practice to perfect your cognitive dissonance.
They WANT you to video them, so others will comply, out of fear of the guns going off.
No they don't. It's why they tried to arrest people for it. Things have been changed for the better after someone was able to tape the unjustifiable actions of the authoritarians. It's slow going but it does make a difference.
No they don't. It's why they tried to arrest people for it. Things have been changed for the better after someone was able to tape the unjustifiable actions of the authoritarians. It's slow going but it does make a difference.
Just say no.
I'm sorry you think that.
Managed theater carried out clumsily is still managed theater.
The guns were for intimidation, which is for show, which is for the purpose of intimidating others into compliance. This is not up for debate, because it's fact.
That those on the ground don't wish to be shown to the public in this light is not surprising.
You just have to comprehend the conflicting perspectives.
Actually people died of food poisoning, industrial accidents and toxic water about 1000% more than now. So the fact is, many didn't survive.
People will always die of something. At least until there are regulations that cover every conceivable bad thing that can happen during one's lifetime. We could make a regulation against life, then nobody would ever die.
Managed theater carried out clumsily is still managed theater.
The guns were for intimidation, which is for show, which is for the purpose of intimidating others into compliance. This is not up for debate, because it's fact.
I'm pretty sure I didn't argue against the idea that they show guns in an attempt to intimidate.
Quote:
That those on the ground don't wish to be shown to the public in this light is not surprising.
You just have to comprehend the conflicting perspectives.
In the long run they can not win when it is presented like this article.
using sting operations and guns-drawn raids usually reserved for terrorists and drug lords - to eliminate unpasteurized milk.
We now have the legal right and ability to record these raids and place them for all to see. Heavily armed thugs coming down on small farmers is not going to go over well.
This is the real problem: The FDA could care less about the bacteria, they just need a weapon to selectively enforce to select winners and losers. If a local goat cheese farmer exceeds this limit, it would probably be a million $ fine and life destroyed. If Kraft violates the new regulation is stop or we will say stop again and then ask Kraft if the have time in their schedule to reinspect in a week or 2.
The FDA and USDA had plenty of time to go after mom and pop organic chicken processors in WVA because they "were close to exceeding" the unsafe threashold of 2000 PPM of bacteria in slaughtered chickens, yet the same regulation specifically exempts Tyson and Perdue from inspections until they get caught with a chicken over 50000 PPM.
What we need is a CD "action thread" for government regulatory abuse so we know about this stuff ASAP and I would certainly call the congressional representative involved.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,299 posts, read 54,213,280 times
Reputation: 40623
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
"Regulations" almost without exception, are initiations of force. Supposedly stopping "crimes" before they occur. Assuming guilt of some sort ahead of time instead of a presumption of innocence. Evil, stupid, and destructive State aggression. The law should be designed to retaliate against crimes that have occurred instead of initiating force against crimes that might happen. But that would be too rational for an irrational fictional creation like the State.
So, you'd be happy:
Going to a 'doctor' who's not been required to have any education/testing before he hangs out a shingle?
Taking drugs that have not been subjected to any testing?
Flying on an airline that's not been subject to testing to verify airworthiness and hasn't been required to undergo any maintenance?
Going to a 'doctor' who's not been required to have any education/testing before he hangs out a shingle?
Taking drugs that have not been subjected to any testing?
Flying on an airline that's not been subject to testing to verify airworthiness and hasn't been required to undergo any maintenance?
It wouldn't be a problem because Consumer Reports would answer all his questions.
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.