but we can decide which information we consider important enough to include. and its still a free market, because it is the consumer's choice we are protecting.
corporation's interests are irrelevant, even though folks like you try to protect them and shield them from actual free market forces.
and here's the libertarian ironically defending corporations right to hide information and hinder the public making a fully informed free market decision. just through the public at the corporations mercy.
And they can't do that when the conditions they care about are hidden from them
Most of the conditions of the food is hidden from them. Why single out GMO as one of the required pieces of information ? Why not mandate accurate display of all pesticides and herbicides, or why not the additives that were added to the blend of rubber of the tires of the harvester ?
We absolutely should do that. But I predict that when we do that, you'll be back to shill against providing pesticide information too.
technically true. but again, like many topics, at this point we have two separate definitions depending on context, the different being the scientific context, and the general public use context.
and at this point, when lay people begin talking about GMO, they mean the direct manipulation of genes, not the somewhat uncontrolled manipulation through breeding. we all know it, and going on about its scientific meaning in a layperson context is merely a waste of time.
basically you are defending corporations who fear losing money because they fear that if the public had the information it wants, it might not buy their products.
decisions based on assumptions are not informed decisions. they are gambles.
also: the only freedom government should be concerned with in this situation is the freedom of choice of the consumer. its not governments job to protect corporations from consumers in the free market.
the interests the government should be concerned with is the public's, since after all, the public IS the government. government does not serve corporation (or at least it shouldn't). it serves the public.
so we get together, we decide there's this piece of information we want on the packaging, so we can decide whether to punish or reward companies based on that information. we do this through our government, and our dollars.
doesn't matter whether that information is GMO content, worker treatment, national origin, or whatever. the only entities that stand to lose from consumers making a decision based on information they want is the corporations, and the government doesn't work for them (again: in an ideal world).
and they can choose to not label anything. or, without a defined certification, and penalties for falsely claiming it, just cause they say "gmo free" doesn't mean it is. which is actually the way it is RIGHT NOW.
all of which leaves the consumer in the dark. without information.
this isn't freedom. this is information asymmetry. which only benefits the corporation.
and given your prolific posting here, can only assume you're being very well paid.
ah yes, the ol throw them on the mercy of the corporations argument. (also: you honestly think they wont charge a premium as is if they do have to label ???)
because consumers should always depend on the goodness of a corporations heart in order to obtain the information they need to make a decision in a free market....
no. food labeling laws are already far too lenient towards corporations ( such as "0g trans fat" actually meaning any value less than 1g, whether its 0.01g, or 0.999g).
the role of government is to protect the consumer, not the corporation. there is zero harm in a free market with requiring information be provided to the consumer. the only people you are protecting with your stance is the corporations.
it doesn't matter whether it impacts health or not.
there is a large segment of the public that wants the info, because they see it as part of making an informed decision. because we use a (largely) free market system. and free markets require information. there is no compelling public interest in hiding the info. just some corporations that fear an impact to their bottom line.
and it's not a warning. it's just a stamp, akin to the Kosher stamp or any of the other product certifications stamped on food packaging.
exactly. the reason companies have fought it is because they don't like change and risk, and this change brings the risk that their profits could be hampered by consumers, who are currently "locked in" customers buying their products regularly, might stop buying their products.
personally I don't really care about gmo/non-gmo. this is a free market situation, and free markets require information a sizable segment of the public wants that information, to make better (they think) decisions. and there is no compelling interest in NOT providing that info. just some corporations that stand to lose don't want to give the public that information. so the role of government in this situation is to ignore the companies, and remember that they serve the citizen public.
companies that stand to lose customers always fight change. companies that stand to gain them always support it. in the end, they don't really care, they are simply making self interested decisions to protect their bottom line. once the status quo has changed, they'll adapt like they always do, and protect their bottom line somewhere else.
No, the media is a corporate creature, owned by corporations that lean overwhelmingly to conservatism.
It's a conservatism that doesn't care about social issues like abortion, gay rights, etc, because they aren't stupid, and can see which way the culture is eventually going to go. but on all else (fiscal, environmental, regulatory, etc) they are solidly conservative, but more importantly, pro-corporate. even MSNBC rarely covers things that matter like campaign financing or lobbying. one of the biggest conservative apologists on TV is on MSNBC.
Again: peace with honor was a lie. The final solution reached at the Paris Peace Talks was we withdraw, and the North waits a few months before reinvading. That was our "Peace With Honor", ie, "pretty please don't make us look bad by reinvading right away". And it was a defeat. Everyone knew what would happen once we left. We had not defeated the North militarily, and we couldn't because they were being supported by Russia and China, so to truly do so would mean ultimately open conflict with Russia and China, and nobody wanted that. That's how proxy wars work, and they are not winnable in the classic sense unless you move into open conflict with the sponsor nations. They did it to us in Vietnam, and we returned the favor in Afghanistan.
--
And as long as we're judging entire political theories based on one country (that wasn't even socialist) actions, then I guess since the People Democratic Republic of Korea is a terrible place with no freedom, democracy must truly suck, eh?
And again: N Vietnam = Communist Communist != Socialist
I think you really don't know your own history. You need to hit the books.
Right back at ya.
A) You've (again) confused totalitarianism, masquerading as communism, for socialism. B) You apparently still either have never heard of Europe, Canada, or handful of others or C) you believe they are post apocalyptic hellscapes, despite all evidence to the contrary.
yes I am aware. a very recent decision, made specifically because of the persons I mentioned.
actually it goes back further than that, to Ring vs Arizona (2002). that's the actual case that said "juries not judges" in regard to executions. However that hasn't affected Alabama (yet), and it took over a decade for Florida to get from Ring to Hurst. just as the prohibition against executing the mentally ill hasn't stopped Texas from continuing the practice to this day.
and the Hurst ruling is narrower than you believe being mainly directed at Florida to abide by the Ring decision. the Hurst decision actually sends the case BACK to Florida's courts to examine whether Hurst would have been sentenced anyway should they have followed procedures that DID align with the Ring decision. which also has the effect of making Florida examine how and whether their process can be made to align with Ring. which leaves the question of whether Hurst will also impact Alabama, since Ring so far hasn't, which is an open question that depends very much on how the procedures there actually carried out. and Alito's dissent here lays some clear groundwork not only for getting around the decision, but even going back and re-examining and possibly overturning (should the conditions be right) Ring (be nice if it was a 9-0 ruling, as that would set a clear mandate, but dissents often leave timebombs for the future).
but that's neither here nor there.
my point was about one of the consequences of electing judges: you end up with political creatures who serve themselves rather than the law. that means, among other things, appearing tough on crime or appealing to bigotry in order to retain their seat. something that will not change even light of the Hurst decision.
Irrelevant to what? you were clearly attempting to imply some sort of mandate, so its completely relevant. which by the way, there was in 2009, and 2012, with over half the country choosing Obama with one of the highest voter turnouts in decades.
you don't want a president to actually do his duties for all 4 years? then change the term to less than that. only that wont stop your petty games, for then you'll just call him a lame duck earlier.
then you're both delusional and uninformed. which is fairly typical for you.
the intent of the Constitution was to create a federal government that was stronger than that under the Articles, because the one under the Articles was essentially a waste of time ignored by all, having almost no power, and accomplishing almost nothing.
everyone involved agreed on that point. the debate was over how much stronger. and no, sorry, gridlock can never be the intention, for then you have the same problem they had before: a government that does nothing. for all their disagreements the Founders all quite clearly wanted a government that functioned.
-Public infrastructure benefits everyone. -Europe doesn't seem to have any problems with competition, innovation, or profitability, even though it has gotten there through regulation, infrastructure investment, and the creation public options including for internet service. -the US government already invested over 300billion (with a B , though its probably more now cause inflation) in public internet infrastructure advancement by granting tax breaks to the telcos for that purpose...money they instead pocketed and have yet to use for that purpose. -If you were around when roads were being built there'd be no public roads.
so yeah. you an F right off with your free market fantasies. internet service isn't a free market and hasn't been for some time. and when the market fails and monopolies develop, its up to government to step in and correct it because government serves the people, not the corporations (how it should be anyway). and im sure in the end the ATT and Comcast will find some forced competition, even if it comes from a public option, to be much more preferable than the other option, which is dismantling them.
Though maybe not...we already did that to ATT, and they came back stronger than ever.
Based on a single issue (gun rights) National review declares him liberal, ignoring that he typically votes in favor of Law Enforcement over criminal defendants (unlike Scalia who actually took an interest in ensuring government didn't overstep even in case of the clearly guilty), and he opposed granting Habeas Corpus to the Guantanamo detainees effectively supporting their indefinite detainment without charge: http://www.nationalreview.com/...
Ilya Shapiro (a fellow at the CATO institute) writing on CNN simply declares him a "solid liberal."
Slashdot Mirror
but we can decide which information we consider important enough to include.
and its still a free market, because it is the consumer's choice we are protecting.
corporation's interests are irrelevant, even though folks like you try to protect them and shield them from actual free market forces.
not really no, there isn't.
the former is an objective, a goal.
the latter is how you meet that goal.
yes, protecting consumer interests is "tyranny".
because when comes to rights, the rights of corporations should trump citizens.
and here's the libertarian ironically defending corporations right to hide information and hinder the public making a fully informed free market decision.
just through the public at the corporations mercy.
its not your job or place to judge the rightness of their decision.
And they can't do that when the conditions they care about are hidden from them
Most of the conditions of the food is hidden from them. Why single out GMO as one of the required pieces of information ? Why not mandate accurate display of all pesticides and herbicides, or why not the additives that were added to the blend of rubber of the tires of the harvester ?
We absolutely should do that.
But I predict that when we do that, you'll be back to shill against providing pesticide information too.
technically true.
but again, like many topics, at this point we have two separate definitions depending on context, the different being the scientific context, and the general public use context.
and at this point, when lay people begin talking about GMO, they mean the direct manipulation of genes, not the somewhat uncontrolled manipulation through breeding. we all know it, and going on about its scientific meaning in a layperson context is merely a waste of time.
basically you are defending corporations who fear losing money because they fear that if the public had the information it wants, it might not buy their products.
decisions based on assumptions are not informed decisions.
they are gambles.
also: the only freedom government should be concerned with in this situation is the freedom of choice of the consumer.
its not governments job to protect corporations from consumers in the free market.
"Corporations are people too my friend"
and whats wrong with that?
the interests the government should be concerned with is the public's, since after all, the public IS the government.
government does not serve corporation (or at least it shouldn't). it serves the public.
so we get together, we decide there's this piece of information we want on the packaging, so we can decide whether to punish or reward companies based on that information. we do this through our government, and our dollars.
doesn't matter whether that information is GMO content, worker treatment, national origin, or whatever.
the only entities that stand to lose from consumers making a decision based on information they want is the corporations, and the government doesn't work for them (again: in an ideal world).
and they can choose to not label anything.
or, without a defined certification, and penalties for falsely claiming it, just cause they say "gmo free" doesn't mean it is.
which is actually the way it is RIGHT NOW.
all of which leaves the consumer in the dark.
without information.
this isn't freedom.
this is information asymmetry.
which only benefits the corporation.
and given your prolific posting here, can only assume you're being very well paid.
ah yes, the ol throw them on the mercy of the corporations argument.
(also: you honestly think they wont charge a premium as is if they do have to label ???)
because consumers should always depend on the goodness of a corporations heart in order to obtain the information they need to make a decision in a free market....
no.
food labeling laws are already far too lenient towards corporations ( such as "0g trans fat" actually meaning any value less than 1g, whether its 0.01g, or 0.999g).
the role of government is to protect the consumer, not the corporation.
there is zero harm in a free market with requiring information be provided to the consumer.
the only people you are protecting with your stance is the corporations.
it doesn't matter whether it impacts health or not.
there is a large segment of the public that wants the info, because they see it as part of making an informed decision.
because we use a (largely) free market system.
and free markets require information.
there is no compelling public interest in hiding the info.
just some corporations that fear an impact to their bottom line.
and it's not a warning.
it's just a stamp, akin to the Kosher stamp or any of the other product certifications stamped on food packaging.
exactly.
the reason companies have fought it is because they don't like change and risk, and this change brings the risk that their profits could be hampered by consumers, who are currently "locked in" customers buying their products regularly, might stop buying their products.
personally I don't really care about gmo/non-gmo.
this is a free market situation, and free markets require information
a sizable segment of the public wants that information, to make better (they think) decisions.
and there is no compelling interest in NOT providing that info.
just some corporations that stand to lose don't want to give the public that information.
so the role of government in this situation is to ignore the companies, and remember that they serve the citizen public.
companies that stand to lose customers always fight change.
companies that stand to gain them always support it.
in the end, they don't really care, they are simply making self interested decisions to protect their bottom line.
once the status quo has changed, they'll adapt like they always do, and protect their bottom line somewhere else.
this is not a troll.
mod up.
No, the media is a corporate creature, owned by corporations that lean overwhelmingly to conservatism.
It's a conservatism that doesn't care about social issues like abortion, gay rights, etc, because they aren't stupid, and can see which way the culture is eventually going to go. but on all else (fiscal, environmental, regulatory, etc) they are solidly conservative, but more importantly, pro-corporate. even MSNBC rarely covers things that matter like campaign financing or lobbying. one of the biggest conservative apologists on TV is on MSNBC.
15 Things Americans Would Know if There Were a 'Liberal Media'
--
Again: peace with honor was a lie.
The final solution reached at the Paris Peace Talks was we withdraw, and the North waits a few months before reinvading.
That was our "Peace With Honor", ie, "pretty please don't make us look bad by reinvading right away".
And it was a defeat. Everyone knew what would happen once we left. We had not defeated the North militarily, and we couldn't because they were being supported by Russia and China, so to truly do so would mean ultimately open conflict with Russia and China, and nobody wanted that. That's how proxy wars work, and they are not winnable in the classic sense unless you move into open conflict with the sponsor nations. They did it to us in Vietnam, and we returned the favor in Afghanistan.
--
And as long as we're judging entire political theories based on one country (that wasn't even socialist) actions, then I guess since the People Democratic Republic of Korea is a terrible place with no freedom, democracy must truly suck, eh?
And again:
N Vietnam = Communist
Communist != Socialist
Moron.
I think you really don't know your own history. You need to hit the books.
Right back at ya.
A) You've (again) confused totalitarianism, masquerading as communism, for socialism.
B) You apparently still either have never heard of Europe, Canada, or handful of others
or C) you believe they are post apocalyptic hellscapes, despite all evidence to the contrary.
she doesn't want an engineer.
she wants an ad executive who can spin BS out of thin air.
people like her are why 'sales engineer' is a thing.
good.
good.
let the hatred flow through you, and take your place at my side.
yes I am aware.
a very recent decision, made specifically because of the persons I mentioned.
actually it goes back further than that, to Ring vs Arizona (2002). that's the actual case that said "juries not judges" in regard to executions.
However that hasn't affected Alabama (yet), and it took over a decade for Florida to get from Ring to Hurst.
just as the prohibition against executing the mentally ill hasn't stopped Texas from continuing the practice to this day.
and the Hurst ruling is narrower than you believe being mainly directed at Florida to abide by the Ring decision. the Hurst decision actually sends the case BACK to Florida's courts to examine whether Hurst would have been sentenced anyway should they have followed procedures that DID align with the Ring decision. which also has the effect of making Florida examine how and whether their process can be made to align with Ring. which leaves the question of whether Hurst will also impact Alabama, since Ring so far hasn't, which is an open question that depends very much on how the procedures there actually carried out. and Alito's dissent here lays some clear groundwork not only for getting around the decision, but even going back and re-examining and possibly overturning (should the conditions be right) Ring (be nice if it was a 9-0 ruling, as that would set a clear mandate, but dissents often leave timebombs for the future).
but that's neither here nor there.
my point was about one of the consequences of electing judges: you end up with political creatures who serve themselves rather than the law.
that means, among other things, appearing tough on crime or appealing to bigotry in order to retain their seat.
something that will not change even light of the Hurst decision.
Irrelevant to what?
you were clearly attempting to imply some sort of mandate, so its completely relevant.
which by the way, there was in 2009, and 2012, with over half the country choosing Obama with one of the highest voter turnouts in decades.
you don't want a president to actually do his duties for all 4 years?
then change the term to less than that.
only that wont stop your petty games, for then you'll just call him a lame duck earlier.
its BS. and you're a fool.
then you're both delusional and uninformed.
which is fairly typical for you.
the intent of the Constitution was to create a federal government that was stronger than that under the Articles, because the one under the Articles was essentially a waste of time ignored by all, having almost no power, and accomplishing almost nothing.
everyone involved agreed on that point. the debate was over how much stronger.
and no, sorry, gridlock can never be the intention, for then you have the same problem they had before: a government that does nothing.
for all their disagreements the Founders all quite clearly wanted a government that functioned.
(you cant sock puppet forever)
Oh. Hi there shill.
Forgot you were still around.
-Public infrastructure benefits everyone.
-Europe doesn't seem to have any problems with competition, innovation, or profitability, even though it has gotten there through regulation, infrastructure investment, and the creation public options including for internet service.
-the US government already invested over 300billion (with a B , though its probably more now cause inflation) in public internet infrastructure advancement by granting tax breaks to the telcos for that purpose...money they instead pocketed and have yet to use for that purpose.
-If you were around when roads were being built there'd be no public roads.
so yeah.
you an F right off with your free market fantasies.
internet service isn't a free market and hasn't been for some time. and when the market fails and monopolies develop, its up to government to step in and correct it because government serves the people, not the corporations (how it should be anyway). and im sure in the end the ATT and Comcast will find some forced competition, even if it comes from a public option, to be much more preferable than the other option, which is dismantling them.
Though maybe not...we already did that to ATT, and they came back stronger than ever.
Nope.
not trolling.
just actual fact:
Based on a single issue (gun rights) National review declares him liberal, ignoring that he typically votes in favor of Law Enforcement over criminal defendants (unlike Scalia who actually took an interest in ensuring government didn't overstep even in case of the clearly guilty), and he opposed granting Habeas Corpus to the Guantanamo detainees effectively supporting their indefinite detainment without charge:
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
Ilya Shapiro (a fellow at the CATO institute) writing on CNN simply declares him a "solid liberal."
Nope.
not trolling.
just cold hard fact and logic.