This administration gets crappier daily.....

[blackspade]

As if the food we consume wasn't bad enough....

In a move decried by consumer and environmental groups as severely weakening the meaning of the organic label, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced this week that the agency had changed the process for exempting otherwise prohibited substances (such as synthetics) in food that carries the “organic” or “made with organic” label. No public comment period was provided for the changes to this policy, which had been in place since 2005.

Under the federal organic law[1] and prior to Friday’s announcement, there was a controlled process for allowing the use of substances not normally permitted in organic production because of extenuating circumstances. These exemptions were supposed to be made for a five-year period, in order to encourage the development of natural (or organic) alternatives. The exemptions were required by law to expire, known as “sunset,” unless they were reinstated by a two-thirds “decisive” majority vote of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and include a public review. This is no longer the case.

The USDA’s recent decision now puts the burden of identifying exempted materials for removal largely onto environmentalists and consumers. Under the new policy, an exempt material could be permitted indefinitely unless a two-thirds majority of the NOSB votes to remove an exempted (synthetic) substance from the list. The new policy allows USDA to relist exemptions for synthetic materials without the recommendation of the independent board and outside of public view, as required by current law

.

http://consumersunion.org/news/u-s-department-of-agriculture-guts-national-organic-law/

[tridim]

1. As does Neo-DU. Congrats.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. +1000!!!!

[mick063]

3. Cheerleading for a bad team must get old.

Doesn't it wear on you?

[geek tragedy]

24. "bad team?" Look forward to your departure from this site this time next year, nt

[warrant46]

49. What do you mean by that?

[geek tragedy]

50. that person is a third party/explicitly anti-Democratic person

who doesn't vote for democrats. Has said so in the past.

Around election time, such people are required to STFU per site rules.

[warrant46]

63. Thank you I didn't know that person was that way

I do know that the site requires support for the party nominee who is running for election

Some times its hard to figure out certain people and why they are here.

I support Unions first and many here don't agree that unions are a good thing. Oh well, that is how I was brought up almost 70 years ago.

Without a living wage we are all peasants

[geek tragedy]

65. Representative work: Obama's NSA is like the Holocaust

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022990639#post26

I don't know anyone here who thinks unions are a bad thing.

[warrant46]

74. Thank you its a problem

As for unions I have seen in the past negative comments on various teachers unions (Chicago). I will alert you to them if more show up. Thanks.

[geek tragedy]

78. I would have to see in context. Of course, sometimes unions deserve criticism

just like politicians and voters do. Fights within organized labor tend to get really nasty.

[JustAnotherGen]

148. Thanks geek tragedy

That's a very eye opening link to read through.

[Supersedeas]

182. i'll second that

[mick063]

215. Put this in the proper context.

Understand the comparison. Understand the context. If you can.


The ashes fell and the German populace ignored it. Our Constitution is being abused and we ignore it. The comparison is of a populace that allows federal "scope creep" until one day they are collectively shocked at what they have become.

That is the context.


This isn't about what we are now. This is about the potential of what we could become. You don't stop such things after the fact. You don't wait until it happens to verify it is actually happening. You stop it before it becomes reality. You stop it dead in it's tracks.


You are correct that it is Obama's NSA. He fights for it. He defends it. Therefore, he owns it.

[AgingAmerican]

82. Isn't the third way essentially a third party

and explicitly anti-Democratic?

I have always thought it was.

[merrily]

102. Did you mean third way or third party?

[geek tragedy]

115. Third way is an amorphous concept, not a movement nt

[merrily]

119. Third Way is a political philosophy espoused by many Democrats.

So, it all depends on how you define "amorphous" "concept" and "movement."

[geek tragedy]

123. it's shorthand for the politics of convenience, which is already practiced by too many nt

[merrily]

129. I thought it was shorthand for "almost Republican."

[SammyWinstonJack]

150. Good one!

[AgingAmerican]

130. It is a combination of Republican and Democrat

It is definitely anti-Democratic. Among practitioners of the third way, traditional Democratic concepts and values are derided as "purist" or "purity".

[merrily]

140. I know what it is technically supposed to be. I expressed my opinion about it, which

I think is closer to the practical reality.

If I thought otherwise, I would change my opinion.

I think it is Republican/Libertarian fiscal policies* plus the social policies of a moderate Republican.**

* The exception being something so extreme that the politician thinks it may cost him or her even LOTE votes.

** The exception being that even Barry Goldwater would not have voted for the Hyde Amendment or the Patriot Act.


Edits were because I left out some words in the subject line

[Erose999]

183. Third way is indeed a movement. A BOWEL movement. A "Turd Way," if you will.

[geek tragedy]

184. More like constipation nt

[sabrina 1]

134. Yes, the Third Way is a separate Party that attached itself to the Dem Party for several

reasons. They could not survive on their own as a Party. But more importantly, they attached themselves to the Dem Party for the sole purpose of dragging OUR PARTY to the Right on Economic issues and on Foreign Policy issues. They used 'left issues' to get their feet in the door, such as minority rights and for a while did fool a lot of Dems. But not any longer.

Their main goals were to push Reaganomics and Wars in the ME. Their title 'The Third Way' which they applied to themselves, tells the story. They are FOR the privatization of SS eg and are in now representative of the Dem Party that most Democrats have belonged to for their entire lives.

[MattSh]

105. Does he vote against Republicans?

Because the Democrats are not given anyone a hell of a lot to vote for.

I know, I know, "the (D) is not as bad as the (R). And the gutter is not as bad as the sewer.

[geek tragedy]

107. asdf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023376488

Instead of being extorted by the Corporate wing via the tired threat of potential GOP control, I shall instead, extort through threat of abstention or third party, demanding an alternative to the "Third Way", and using my own threat of potential GOP control.

...
Not only will I refuse to vote for more of the same, I will put in great effort to defeat more of the same. We are past the "team sport" stage.

As I said, will not last here come election season.

[bahrbearian]

112. Says the guy with 0% chance of serving on a jury.

[geek tragedy]

113. I suppose you think that's clever nt

[bahrbearian]

116. Weak n/t

[geek tragedy]

122. your wit is searing today. nt

[bahrbearian]

124. your wit is searing today, see I can work on my post count along with you.

[geek tragedy]

126. oh, you're just trolling for a fight. last word is yours, nt

[mick063]

216. Yes...I stand by this completely

It is the difference between you and me.

The third way has put our nation in shambles. It has stopped the correction factor required whenever Democrats assume control from Republican economic calamity.


You pay the ransom. The ransom that never goes away and always goes up. You do this because you believe in corporate welfare. You believe in corporate immunity. You believe in "trickle down" Freidman economics. You believe in weakened collective bargaining.

You must.

Otherwise you would not staunchly defend the politics that facilitate such economic ideology. You embrace the Koch's DLC. You will vote for it, work for it, and repeatedly defend it.


You will be lost in the shuffle. Attitudes are changing, people are changing, but you are not changing.

You cling to Clinton. You cling to NAFTA. You cling to TPP.

It will be your last hurrah.

[stupidicus]

69. that the majority pov on most issues around here will be silenced

and the thought police will be out in force daily trying to whittle down their opposition around here with reports to the admin or moderators.

Maybe if DU's hits/participation takes a major hit, the admin will reconsider that prohibition.

[Romulox]

79. The admin here seems sympathetic to some of the more conservative posters' POV, imo. nt

[stupidicus]

86. I've wondered

some of Earl's efforts have indicated he's on the wrong side of some of the issues compared to the "hear no evil" crowd -- like the NSA revelations for example.

I don't quite get why anyone would want to discourage the criticisms, since the best time to hold the feet of the pols to the fire is before they are elected, not after. It also makes no sense for this crew to be wailing about "how we such a diff we made" on things like the SUmmer's withdrawal, and then to deny that criticisms might have an impact of like kind before an election, at least in terms of the targeted pol going on record in support or not for this and that -- what we base or voting choices on.

That's why I find that policy neither reasonable nor logical if maximization of what we collectively want is the goal. I also suspect that Earl has seen which way the political winds are blowing around here, and it's not in the direction the minority around here would prefer.

[Hekate]

217. Cute. You two can start your own site if the Founders/Admins don't suit you.

some of Earl's efforts have indicated he's on the wrong side of some of the issues compared to the "hear no evil" crowd -- like the NSA revelations for example.

[stupidicus]

224. and you could butt out

with your petty nonsense.

Obviously an honest deconstruction of that commentary would indicate a high likelihood that I share Earl's pov on that, and perhaps other matters I feel no duty to share with the likes of you.

And given that he seemingly has strong povs in opposition to the NSA revelations, and likely others, I see no problem with speculating as to how that might impact "the rules" as they currently stand, assuming heavy criticism will be turning into a "taboo" around here.

Gee, why not go full bore with your assumptions and charge something stupendously stupid, like I must hate Earl and DU because I dared to speculate that a change in the number and gravity of the issues might result in rule revision?

I've grown quite accustomed to that kinda stupid crap outta the "hear/see no evil" crowd around here.

[bahrbearian]

118. Its all about the Benjamin's , so long as there is DLC money to spend.

[bvar22]

175. AND, that fat roll of DLC Money comes straight from the Koch Bros, Health Insurance, & Wall Street!

Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms–though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included.

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

[font size=5]
The DLC New Team
Progressive Democrats Need NOT Apply
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)


No wonder our conservative members here are rubbing their hands with glee at the fantasy of purging DU of its Liberal Democrats.




You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[bahrbearian]

177. Wow, I should have known that, its starting to make Sen$e

[Hekate]

221. Are you saying that DU's Admins receive money from the Kochs? Do tell. Inquiring minds want to know.

[bvar22]

225. No. I AM saying that the DLC was funded by the Koch Brothers,

...and that Koch Bros Reps sat on the Executive Board of the DLC.

Now, if you would like to deny that,
Please Proceed.

[Hekate]

220. Are you saying that DU's Admins receive money from the DLC? Do tell. Inquiring minds want to know.

[L0oniX]

89. Judging by your transparency page ...you are not far from a forced departure as well.

[geek tragedy]

90. I vote Democratic all the time nt

[Skittles]

176. we ALL thought we voted Democratic

[SidDithers]

211. +1...

Sid

[bvar22]

179. They do that every campaign season.

They start rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of purging DU of its Liberal Democrats.

The TOS does NOT forbid criticism of conservative policy,
but that doesn't stop the misuse of the TOS as a threat to prevent the discussion of GOOD POLICY. This thread is a perfect example.

Here is what they are objecting to today:

Notice that none of the hijackers even came close to a rebuttal or critique of the material presented.
Nothing posted by the OP is a violation of the TOS.
It is a plea for Good Government that is responsive to THE CONSUMERS,
but THAT can't be tolerated here by some
who instead go directly into the Attack the Messenger mode.

They always get a big sad when the ownership of DU doesn't purge all the Liberal Democrats on their list during campaign season.


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[rhett o rick]

9. Interesting that you cant refute the article so you just lower yourself to this.

This is an important issue. Dont you have an honest stand on this?

[JoePhilly]

10. The Wheel of Outrage is spinning round and round.

[sabrina 1]

52. Sure is. Too bad the outrage isn't about the FOOD the American people are eating rather

than about the trivial issue of trying to defend the indefensible which we understand IS becoming more and difficult.

[JoePhilly]

61. Whatever keeps you outraged

I suppose.

There's always a new outrage when the last one fizzles out.

[sabrina 1]

71. I'm proud to be among those who didn't suddenly lose their justifiable outrage over

harmful policies as soon as it became 'no longer needed' because 'our team won'.

Outrage over the deaths of millions of human beings, outrage that no one has yet been held accountable (remember how outraged DUers were about that?) for those massive war crimes, outraged over the attacks on SS, about the corruption on Wall St an the bailing out of those criminals. Remember when Bush bailed them out how 'outraged' everyone here used to be?

So what changed YOUR sense of outrage over issues which have always been and still are important to Democrats??

Do you not consider this very Democratic issue important, did you EVER consider it to be important?

[JoePhilly]

98. So the OP here is really about all of those other things huh?

Like much of the outrage on display around DU these days, what you just put forward is a free floating, stream of consciousness, rant.

The items you listed are all separate topics, and my level of "outrage", has varied accordingly.

For instance, I supported Bush when he went into Afghanistan after Al Qaeda and OBL after 9/11. But I was totally against his becoming distracted and invading Iraq. I used to laugh at RWers who could not distinguish between these two countries ... could not see that the approach to one, was not appropriate for the other. I now know that some on the left suffer from this same problem.

During the collapse in 2008, I remember as company after company went out of business, not just the big ones, little companies and mom and pop shops that rely on short term financing, financing that dried up until the bailout was enacted.

I understood then, as I do now, that some on DU, and on the far right as well, wanted to see the entire financial system collapse because each of those groups assumes that after the total collapse THEIR version of utopia follows.

Both of those groups are wrong (and for different reasons), and neither has any idea how their Utopia comes into being afterwards, the actual steps I mean, but both groups believe that such a collapse is a requirement before their version of Utopia can be realized.

There is much to be done to improve this country's financial system. Hoping for its collapse isn't one of them. And its pretty hard to jail people who didn't break any laws. And of course, when we see an OP describing how one of them has been jailed, or fined, its discounted, much like any good financial news is discounted.

You mention the attacks on Social Security. That's one of DU's favorite points of manufactured outrage. 5 years now, Social Security has been on its death bed. Its death predicted over and over and over. Obama plans to kill it because he hates the poor and loves the rich, or some such nonsense. Every few months the death is predicted, with endless gnashing of teeth. SS will remain intact, as will the endless hair on fire predictions of its demise. The folks who have made this prediction are just as angry as if cuts had actually happened. And they'll stay that way.

Talking about hair on fire predictions .... we have Libya, Egypt, and Syria ... each was certain to become the next Iraq war. Until it wasn't. A good example of how some on the left could not imagine these three different countries and their problems required approaches unique to the situation. Each was going to be another Iraq war. And those who freaked out about that each time, remain in a constant state of freak out. Again, just as angry about Obama's warmongering tendency as if he had actually started 3 new wars in those countries.

There was a time when criticism on DU was thoughtful, meaningful. That's pretty rare these days. Take this OP. The specific issue, a rather small point, wasn't juicy enough on its own. The OP title needed to have more pizzazz.

btw ... have you noticed the new trend lately ... the one in which some argue that elected Democrats only pretend to care about social issues as a way to mask their evil economic intentions. Its the kind of stuff that should be in a conspiracy forum. But its starting to become regular GD fodder. A useful way to discount progress in those areas.

DU is now, to a large degree, just a meta-site. Its really not about anything but the outrage.

[zappaman]

168. Best post I've read on this site in some time!

"I understood then, as I do now, that some on DU, and on the far right as well, wanted to see the entire financial system collapse because each of those groups assumes that after the total collapse THEIR version of utopia follows.

Both of those groups are wrong (and for different reasons), and neither has any idea how their Utopia comes into being afterwards, the actual steps I mean, but both groups believe that such a collapse is a requirement before their version of Utopia can be realized."


That's exactly why I read here that "the American Empire is collapsing", "we live in a dictablanda/fascist state/etc..."

I think angry, sad people with miserable lives WANT this country to collapse so everyone can be as fucking miserable as they are.

The ultimate is selfishness, IMO.

[Number23]

205. "DU is now... really not about anything but the outrage."

You nailed it. And not even quality outrage. Just idiotic frothing by a loud and impotent minority.

[SidDithers]

212. Great post...

DU is now, to a large degree, just a meta-site. Its really not about anything but the outrage.

Sid

[mick063]

218. It should be outraged.

America is outraged.

Time to stir shit up.

Relentless outrage.

It isn't going to stop.

Deal with it.

[blackspade]

213. I'll address my part of this:

There was a time when criticism on DU was thoughtful, meaningful. That's pretty rare these days. Take this OP. The specific issue, a rather small point, wasn't juicy enough on its own. The OP title needed to have more pizzazz.

You are entitled to your opinion, but for me the subject of the OP is not a 'rather small point.' It is about the food that my family consumes every day and how this administration is chipping away at the consumer protections within our food sourcing. That is a fundamental issue, in my opinion. You need good food and clean water to live and fight for the social systems that might make the world a better place for my children. As for pizzazz, despite your assumption, that was not my intent. Rather it was out of profound disgust with how basic elements of consumer protection are being handled under this Administration. A bit OTT? I will concede that that is perhaps the case, but my reaction was genuine and not intended as flamebait as some have assumed.

[Hekate]

219. Pretty succinct, Joe Philly

A few random quotes from your post. Keep it up.

I understood then, as I do now, that some on DU, and on the far right as well, wanted to see the entire financial system collapse because each of those groups assumes that after the total collapse THEIR version of utopia follows.
.....neither has any idea how their Utopia comes into being afterwards, the actual steps I mean, but both groups believe that such a collapse is a requirement before their version of Utopia can be realized.

There is much to be done to improve this country's financial system. Hoping for its collapse isn't one of them. And its pretty hard to jail people who didn't break any laws. And of course, when we see an OP describing how one of them has been jailed, or fined, its discounted, much like any good financial news is discounted. ....

Talking about hair on fire predictions .... we have Libya, Egypt, and Syria ... each was certain to become the next Iraq war. Until it wasn't. A good example of how some on the left could not imagine these three different countries and their problems required approaches unique to the situation. Each was going to be another Iraq war. And those who freaked out about that each time, remain in a constant state of freak out. Again, just as angry about Obama's warmongering tendency as if he had actually started 3 new wars in those countries.

There was a time when criticism on DU was thoughtful, meaningful. That's pretty rare these days.

[AgingAmerican]

136. Avoid debating issues at all costs

...and attack the messenger. There is a very tiny corps here on DU whom that is their sole repertoire. There are perhaps 10 of them who engage in 90% of it, and their goal apparently is to shut down all debate on anything that sheds any sunlight on the administration.

Well, in the words of Barack Obama: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant".

[G_j]

138. I eat organic foods when I can, &

I am outraged about this.

[merrily]

151. I must avoid additives, but the FDA's ignoring the rule of law is what gets to me most.

[Mojorabbit]

12. That was a crappy post. nt

[cali]

28. how about actually commenting on the posted story? Or is that too much for YOU?

It appears you prefer to whine about how mean DU is to the President. Outside of that, you appear to have no fucking concern at all about actual issues.

[tridim]

45. DU isn't mean to the President...

Neo-DU ignores everything the President accomplishes, which is just idiotic. It makes Neo-DU worthless.

Hopefully someday DU will again talk about actual issues. We used to do that before you helped ruin it.

[sabrina 1]

54. This OP is about a real issue. Care to help out by talking about the issue instead of DUers?

[bobduca]

59. I think its awesome the way pragmatic centrists appropriate "neo-"

Project much Neo-liberals?

what's next Neo-emoprogs?

[Bradical79]

84. It's unfortunate

when someone throws out a "Neoliberal" label simply because they lack the ability and integrity to attempt an intelligent response to a real issue. It's an embarrassment to real Democrats and liberals when such people think the Democrats should be a cult of personality where the goal is simply to win regardless of right and wrong. I've voted Democrat all my life, but it's hard to blame some for leaving the party or refusing to vote when they encounter these sort of "loyalists" who actively fight against liberal values and support further increases in corporate power. Issues don't matter to too many of these people. It's all a game with the goal to win.

[merrily]

156. Actually, my beef (totally organic) is that they misappropriated the word "liberal."

I didn't care nearly as much when liberals who switched political parties called themselves neoconservatives.

This time, they took over the Democratic Party, instead of being openly Republican, like their openly neoconservative predecessors.

[bvar22]

181. "Neo Democrats" = "New Democrats" = 3rd Way = DLC = Republican-Lite

I'm NOT a "Neo" Liberal, or a "New" Democrat.
I'm an Olde Style FDR/LBJ Working Class Pro-UNION LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.
I've been one for a long time,
and won't be changing soon.

What the HELL was so wrong with the "Old" Democrats
that we NOW need these Chamber of Commerce, conservative, Republican-Lite "New Democrats"?

[treestar]

40. Plus no analysis of why that opinion piece is right or not

We are obviously supposed to just go with the conclusion it presents without examining the underlying issues.

[tridim]

47. The OP is anti-Democratic flamebait. nt

[sabrina 1]

72. Are you saying that Democrats are no more concerned about this very important issue

that Republicans?

[Sheepshank]

200. Misinterpret, reinterpret and regurgitate made up shit in one liners

is that how you are building your post numbers?

how in the hell did you come up with conclusion?

[merrily]

146. No, the administration is not the be all and end all of the entire Democratic Party or everyone who

votes Democratic (or tries to).

[merrily]

166. No, by all means, go ahead and examine the underlying issues of the article.

So doing would elevate the level of commentary by quite a bit.

So far, most of it has been about one word out of several hundred in the OP.

[merrily]

57. Neoliberals deserve no less.

[AgingAmerican]

88. If anything in the Democratic party is 'Neo'

It's the 'Third Way'.

Anything remotely traditionally Democratic is labeled, "Purist" or "Purity".

[merrily]

147. When did being a Democrat become a bad thing?

For that matter, when did impurity become a good thing?

Isn't it funny that they themselves used "purity" to describe people they perceive as being not like them?

[AgingAmerican]

214. Indeed

nt

[pinboy3niner]

4. Fucked-up headline

Is the issue that the admin is getting crappier, or the USDA action?

The subject here seems to be the agency action, not the administration.

[Eric J in MN]

5. The USDA is part of the Obama Administration (NT)

NT

[pinboy3niner]

6. Well, duh!

The headline promises a treatise on how the admin is getting "crappier" but the body doesn't deliver that.

It's about a specific issue, not about anything the admin has done that has been "crappy" and it makes no case about the increasing crappiness of the Administration.

[djean111]

7. Well, to be fair, criticizing a specific issue usually brings charges of being an Obama-hater.

In fact, criticizing of a specific issue can bring charges of being an Obama-hater, a Paulite, an emo-prog, a birther, an undercover repub, or a spate of poo thrown at the source of the criticism.

[JoePhilly]

11. So avoid that criticism, with a more general attack on the administration.

Sure ... that makes complete sense.

[djean111]

15. Are you suggesting that bad policies, or policies perceived to be bad, are enacted by

rogue administration employees? When an ex-Monsanto guy is chosen to create policy, for example, whose fault is it?
It seems that to criticize anything that happens under Obama is perceived to be a direct attack on Obama - the result of being afraid to criticize policies is to agree that Obama can do no wrong, so therefore no policies enacted by him or people working for him can be wrong. Nope.
There are enough sneering and jeering OPs about "ODS" (means something different to me, ha!) DUers; lately any critical OP about a policy gets the inevitable ODS comment.

[JoePhilly]

17. You just argued that to avoid being called an Obama hater, one

should avoid being critical of SPECIFIC policies, and instead go with general attacks against the administration (as the OP does) because when one is critical of specific policies, one is called an Obama hater.

Your argument made absolutely no sense. The OP's title actually attacked the administration in general, and not a specific policy.

And please spare me about all of the OPS attacking those with ODS ... DU, particularly GD, is all anti-Obama, all the time. Anyone who spends more than a few minutes here knows it.

And didn't we just have 4 weeks of over the top hysteria predicting a war in Syria that was never going to happen? Each explaining how this administration was hell bent on a full scale invasion?

Positive OPs about the administration are very rare on DU. Hair on fire OPs, however, are the new norm.

I figure the OP writer here determined that the only way to get eyeballs on their OP was to make a general attack, in part because the issue they go on to talk about is really rather insignificant.

[djean111]

21. Actually, being called an Obama-hater is kind of meaningless any more.

That term is used to slam anyone who disagrees with anything he does.
So - not wanting to bomb Syria makes me an Obama hater? All righty then.

[JoePhilly]

23. Not what I said.

And also not surprised by your interpretation.

One could be against strikes and not be an Obama hater.

Most of what we saw of course was not that. It was OP after OP predicting an Iraq style war in Syria, a war that the predictors claimed Obama absolutely, positively, wanted to start.

Ironically, Rush makes the same argument you make as a way to defend against claims that some will be outraged no matter what happens.

[djean111]

31. Those OPs were just going by the fact that Obama said he wanted to strike.

Silly people.
Conflating DUers with Rush because we agree on one or two things is ridiculous, not ironic.
Done with this, I want to just think about what is actually happening as far as policies go.
Thanks for the conversation!

[JoePhilly]

101. No ... they took his willingness to strike ...

and expanded it into a desire ... no a certainty ... that the administration was going to invade Syria.

Folks actually said that the President was following the PNAC plan, and doing so required an invasion.

Not sure how anyone could have missed it ... it happened in OP after OP.

[merrily]

120. LOL!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. The headline was generalised, and IMHO, overblown but the OP was specific

and IMHO, the product of 2 competing camps (scammers and purists) seeking to have the government protect their respective profit margins.

I disagree with the headline, the OP is wholly predictable WRT the competing parties but your characterization of the OP is misplaced.

[pinboy3niner]

14. Bullshit

You're fantasizing about reactions that may--or may not--come.

You must be an undercover repub.

[djean111]

16. :-)

[merrily]

30. Meh. Juvenile, asinine comments like "Obama hater" don't warrant

re-wording anything. It's the equivalent of "You're a poopy head."

That's not even worthy of a two year old, let alone someone who has access (we assume) to a computer.

[merrily]

22. I am not sure you understood Reply #5.

The entire Executive Branch, including every federal agency, is part of the Obama Administration.

[pinboy3niner]

25. I'm not sure you understand that a history of "crappiness" is not proved by one point. nt

[merrily]

27. That is not what your post said, though. However, I answered that point

when I replied to another of your posts.

I guess nitpicking a perfectly clear title is easier than dealing with the actual substance of the OP?

[Sheepshank]

83. Given the WH hate lately,

why is it a surprise that the heading in the OP is couched in terms of crapping on the Admin, and not at the agency?

This is simply another call for "Obama should be a Dictator" to change the rules and processes of an agency so then DU can combust over that new problem....... nothing more, nothing less.

[pinboy3niner]

85. Too many threads present great points and info on issues...

...but can't resist adding a gratuitous shot at the opposing faction(s).

It may be calculated to get attention or it may just be sticking a finger in the other guy's eye.

Either way, its fucked up.

[merrily]

97. ? The agency is part of the Administration.

A POTUs oversees executive agencies. It's part of his duties.

Performing your duties is not being a dictator.

[Sheepshank]

100. This POTUS has made it clear since day one

he is not the minutae overseer of every department...he hires people, has policies and laws in place that dictate operational procedures, and expects tham to be run by persons with the expertise. You want Obama to run the government as the dictator, overseer, micro manager? Perhpas you should check into that management style for the next candidate. The OP is simply taking a pot shot with the heading and while I'm upset ad the FDA, unless this was a personal project of Obama, I'd bet he didn't even know about this particular policy.

[merrily]

104. You don't have to be a minute overseer or a dictator.

This is by far not the first instance in which the FDA undermined true producers of organic food. The Solicitor General reports directly to the President and the Solicitor General has gone to the Supreme Court against organic farmers on an earlier FDA. Please don't tell me that the President was unaware of that until after the fact. Also, please don't tell me the SG was "simply" defending a federal agency ruling because, in that case, the FDA had ignored a law requiring it to consult another federal agency, namely, the EPA. So, the SG upheld the FDA in violating federal law.

Oh, and it is the administration, just as the OP says. Even the title does not say anything about Obama as an individual

It's too bad that people get so hung up on a thread title (or on defending Obama, who doesn't really need defending) that they ignore the body of the OP and the problems with labeling products synthetics as organic.

[Sheepshank]

128. whatev....

the thread title is an ambush and misleading.

You love the title and messenger...have at it.

[merrily]

132. Pretending to read my heart AND mind? How impressive.

[Sheepshank]

180. lord almighty another martyr

I'm merely responding to your call that the OP is accurate and I am not....again...have at it. And Crap all over the admin because you didn't get your pony or your way or thing Obama dabbles in the minutae of every policy about to be brokered ever. Just the notion of that is so childish.

[rhett o rick]

13. I am guessing that the OP is suggesting that the Administration has some responsibility.

If you dont agree then maybe you can tell us who is responsible. Who is the current head and who appointed them for example.

[pinboy3niner]

20. Don't mistake me--I don't disagree at all

The OP's point is on a specific issue, not on some history of "crappiness" of the Administration, which is not supported by the post despite the headline.

[merrily]

26. The meaning is clear. Any comment at all on the actual article?

No one has to go back to January 2009 and give a blow by blow to post that the Administration is getting worse (or getting better) by the day.

[rhett o rick]

35. Good point. I guess from the view point of the corporatists, the Admin is getting better.

Just wait until the TPP is ratified, the corporatists will be in heaven.

[DeSwiss]

178. ....

[blackspade]

185. Not a headline.

My opinion based on the latest USDA action.
Incidentally, the USDA is part of the administration and it's leadership appointed by the President and his advisers.
The issue is exactly what was posted, ie. the USDA is destroying the entire meaning of organic and undermining a whole segment of the food economy for the benefit of large industrial agriculture and the processed food industry; something that all of us should be concerned about.

[n2doc]

8. When one appoints a bunch of industry hacks to regulatory positions, this is the result n/t

[sharp_stick]

18. As does the ability

to create meaningful OP lines that aren't idiotic fucking flamebait.

[merrily]

34. Please see Reply 33.

[sharp_stick]

36. When someone posts

obvious and intentional flambait the responses pretty much write themselves.

[merrily]

39. No, actually they don't.

[elleng]

103. Right. Thanks.

[blackspade]

186. Then don't make idiotic fucking responses.

Do you have a comment about the USDA action?

[sharp_stick]

209. Idiotic responses

is pretty much all that is deserved to moronic flamebait.

I could probably comment on the USDA action but sometimes it's just not worth the fucking time. Let me know if you ever come up with something that is.

[blackspade]

210. OK then....

I could probably comment on the USDA action but sometimes it's just not worth the fucking time.

But it was worth the time to post yet another insulting moronic post?

[stonecutter357]

29. more hate

On DU

[merrily]

33. As opposed to posts like yours?

Politicians are public figures. If they don't want criticism, they shouldn't run.

Besides, they probably are not reading the OP's post.

The OP criticized the policies of the government.

You criticize the OP for expressing an opinion about government policies; and the OP is very likely to read your post.



Give me criticism of public figures and government actions over attempts to squelch speech every time.

BTW, any comment on change in FDA policy that is the subject of the OP?

[stonecutter357]

41. PAP?

[merrily]

44. Substance is not your strong suit, is it?

[merrily]

55. Proved my point. Thanks.

[bobduca]

93. "@#$% the OP, @#$% the alerter, and @#$% the troll stonecutter replied to. ..."

Stay classy BOGgers...

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS:

Another personal attack, second in the sub-thread.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Sep 20, 2013, 11:10 AM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Flamebait OP Exclusion Rule (which I just made up): When someone posts flamebait attacks on Democrats and the administration, all rules are off. @#$% the OP, @#$% the alerter, and @#$% the troll stonecutter replied to. Signed: Mindless Cheerleader.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: How did this person get troll out of these comments...hide it and have a stern talking to to this person.

Thank you.

[HangOnKids]

141. Mindless Cheerleader Must Have A Sad

Poor thing.

[merrily]

153. I thought it was funny (and I was the object of the deleted posts).

[Sheepshank]

201. Are you complaining or being smug?

[L0oniX]

110. .

[L0oniX]

94. sorry ...wrong hat.

Last edited Fri Sep 20, 2013, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)

[merrily]

106. I want to be clear

that I did not alert on either of those posts.

[bobduca]

127. I posted the jury results... I alerted on both.

And I stand by those alerts.

[merrily]

149. It's very brave of you to say so.

You did not have to.

I just wanted to be clear that I did not lecture that poster on free speech, then turn around and alert when I did not like what he or she said to me.

[L0oniX]

111. Speaking of hate ...congrats on your 2 new hidden posts. Enjoy your stay. n/t

[blackspade]

187. And this is 'hate' how?

This USDA action endangers the health and well being of my family by making it impossible to determine what kind of fucked up chemicals are in our food.
It pisses me off. Especially coming from the administration of a man I helped get elected twice.

So, so much for your 'hate' memo.

[tblue]

32. The "post-reelection real Obama"

is not the liberal some here predicted. He's worse than the other one. Way worse.

[merrily]

37. That is sad. I hope that, at least the synthetic ingredients must be listed somewher

that the consumer can read them before purchasing.

I think those trying to eat organic are used to scrutinizing labels.

The absence of public hearings is inexcusable, though.

Then again, this is an administration that weighed in on behalf of Monsanto and against organic farmers.

[Generic Other]

87. Monsanto has thrown millions into Washington State

to defeat any attempts to label food. The ads they are running are so ludicrous! But they are constant. They intend to defeat our initiative.

"The No on 522 campaign has raised $11.1 million so far and has spent only a fraction of its war chest. Monsanto tops the group's list of donors, while pesticide giants Dupont and Bayer CropScience have donated $3.2 million and $562,000, respectively."

http://truth-out.org/news/item/18801-monsanto-spends-millions-to-defeat-washington-gmo-labeling-initiative

It is so obvious that these corporations are not serving public interest or interest of Obama administration. I really don't understand. For one, our GMO foods are not exportable which seems like it would cut profits of our farmers. Lots of Americans will not eat the food if they can find any way to avoid it.

If we can't get honest labeling in my state then I think I will have to assume all food is tainted unless a company decides to tell me otherwise as a selling point. I intend to ask the produce manager anytime I buy fresh food now. Even if he can't answer, I intend to ask. Same with cans. Just make a nuisance of myself. Everyone should do it. Ask at the check-out stand what percentage of the food going in your bag is GMO. Start the conversation there, include other shoppers. Keep hammering at them. The more we get the word out the more people turn on them. Mention the bees. The bee die off is a big deal.

Time for consumers to quit acting like dumb cows in a feed lot. Including me!!!

[merrily]

92. Thanks for all that good info.

I have to take exception to one bit in your post, though.

It is so obvious that these corporations are not serving public interest or interest of Obama administration.

To the contrary, it is very obvious that these corporations are serving the interests of the Obama administration. If they weren't, there would be no reason to do in organic farmers, not to mention the entire organic food supply, in order to benefit Monsanto.

This is not anything that can be blamed on Congress or on Republicans, either. It is the FDA and the Solicitor General.

[Generic Other]

117. I guess I just don't think it serves our administration's best interests to defend GMOs

If we can't sell abroad, it cuts our profits. How does that help the administration? And in America, it is obvious people are very concerned about healthy foods. We may struggle with our urges to eat a Big Mac, but most are pretty certain they don't want Round-up Ready food. Poison is not a good selling point. So why force crap down our throats? It is not a wise political strategy unless you are beholden to Monsanto and the other companies. If this is the case, it is time to discontinue such a destructive relationship.

What happens when consumers switch to food products imported from countries with laws against GMOs? How does this help America's bottom line?

As for why our government is so reluctant to protect our health, I am mystified. Seems like it is all about money. The Big Pharma-farm-industrial complex.

Our government needs to quit acting like they are used car salesmen, and we need to quit acting like helpless customers ripe to be defrauded.

We need to go rogue on their asses. I think of the Indians in my state that began to sell untaxed cigarettes on the reservations. They had to smuggle the cigarettes onto the reservations. And they did! Maybe they need to offer non-GMO foods at their tribal stores. Or prescription meds imported (smuggled) from Canada. The Indians have the infrastructure in place. They are sovereign nations. Maybe they can help us. I would gladly shop with a tribal grocer who sold non-GMO foods. Or cheaper prescription drugs.

I have nothing but contempt for the US government when it works against the interests of the people. And that is not limited to any one individual or party. The government either works for the majority of our interests, or it is defrauding us like used car salesmen with GMO lemons to sell.

[merrily]

125. Again, I agree on substance.

If corporations were not serving the interests of our legislators and regulators, they'd be protecting the people instead of the corporations.

"Follow the money." Best three-word political analysis I've ever seen or heard.

[treestar]

38. There was something good done about emissions

But I'd have to link to the BOG to bring it out.

[merrily]

42. What does emissions have to do with labeling of organic foods?

[treestar]

43. did you miss the part about the administration being crappy?

that means all of its actions are up for discussion.

so if the administration does something good it does not count. Got it.

[merrily]

48. Gee, you put a lot of words into the question that I posted.

Is "something good about emissions" the only good thing you can point to?

That is what your reply to me implies.

You can always link to that list.

[Sheepshank]

202. nope, that post was on target

and pretty much reiterated what you said up thread. One of the 20 or so posts upthread where you clearly attempt to establish that OBAMA must be very well informed and micromanaging every detail of every department and ever action of every employee in that department so he take full and personal responsibility the moment a bad happens. So and therefore all topics are valid...you just don't want to now invoke you own talking point.

[merrily]

51. PS. I did not miss the title, but I got over it and read the post.

When reply after reply relates to the title of a post, and ignore the substance of the OP, that seems desperate.

[Sheepshank]

204. Titles are important as the crowd that likes to crap on accomplishment will attest

so the fact that you admit the title is misleading is interesting after all these posts.

When I read a title and first few lines of the post seem unrelated...I stop reading. I don't like being lied to by fellow DU'ers..I don't like being manipluated or sucked into reading an article. I a little integrity, and truthful heading, and I would be all over the topic. And in fact I am on another thread.

[blackspade]

188. I'm glad that there was something done about emissions.

I'm always up for something positive from the administration.

[Egalitarian Thug]

46. You were mean to someone's pretend boyfriend, you're gonna get it now...

It just gets funnier every day. Principles, actions, and agenda are all irrelevant, all that matters is for whom you cheer.

[Purveyor]

60. +1 eom

[blackspade]

189. It wasn't about being mean....

I'm just continually disgusted by the actions that this administration has taken on a number of topics, food safety among them.

[Egalitarian Thug]

208. Sure, but you're not supposed mention it. The tiny, but dedicated and very vocal, minority team

here will put you on their list, and then you'll be sorry. The self-appointed perception posse believes it is their duty to punish all those that will not conform. Resistance is futile!

You have underestimated the power of denial, my friend.

[JEB]

56. I'd like to know exactly what is in food I buy,

no matter which party is in power. Simple human need, no hate toward any individual involved. Bad policy fully despised. The system isn't broken, it's fixed. Food quality and honest meaningful labeling is essential for the health of the citizens. Doesn't give much faith in safety of our food considering the massive amounts of pollution (Gulf oil, Fukashima, run away GMO's, industrial farming, etc).

[blackspade]

190. Exactly.

Thank you. You summed up my 'WTF?' moment much better than I did.

[MrScorpio]

58. OMG! Obama is going to kill us all!

Was that the reaction that you were looking for?

[merrily]

64. Gee, I hope the OP had more confidence in posters than that!

Some posters on this thread did read past the title and posted about the rule change and the lack of adherence to the law.

[blackspade]

191. No.

I was expressing my outrage at another giveaway to the industrial food producers at the expense of organic producers who already have an uphill battle to market and get their food to the public.

[stupidicus]

62. yep, I see the usual suspects have arrived. I'll call your crappier and raise you

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/12/washington-throws-chemical-safety-standards-out-fracking

Maybe an adverse reaction to chemical influences in their environment explains in part their lack of critical reasoning skills and aversion to facts they can't reasonably contest.

[blackspade]

192. Thanks for the link.

Yuck, just what we need, less chemical regulation by both the EPA and the House.
As usual the 99% lose.

[Cryptoad]

66. Obama Haters stay focused on their Hate

as the GOP gnaws on their ASS!


geeez

[L0oniX]

96. "Haters" = inflammatory nonsense. They just don't like mindless worshiping or idolization.

[merrily]

99. Actually, the OP focused on the actions of the FDA. You, on the other hand...

I have seen quite a few of your posts and not a single one of them has dealt with substance.

I can only hope that your posts encourage people to speak up all the more.

[blackspade]

193. There was no 'hate' in my post.

Disgust at the USDA actions, certainly, but not 'hate.'

And, I have no ass left, thanks to the GOP and their Third Way enablers.

[JoeyT]

67. Not one person attempting to refute anything in the post,

just a bunch of screaming about being mean to the president.

From what I can tell the changes don't actually alter what's put in the food: They just streamline the bribery process that was already in place. What people eat isn't likely to change, just how much it costs the people that are selling it to them to put it in there. So while it definitely isn't a good thing, it isn't catastrophic either. It just increases the profit margin for shady companies, which certainly isn't new.

[bobduca]

76. Pretty Pathetic

I put every one of these petulant teeny boppers on full ignore. Everyone should.

[blackspade]

194. It also makes it harder to tell what's in the food.

Actions like this make it increasingly difficult to feed my family food that won't make them sick years from now.
I just want to know what is in the processed shit that the industrial food complex puts on the shelves.

[geek tragedy]

68. This post is not hate.

It's just juvenile, whiny, and without a single intelligent thought contributed by the OP.

[Romulox]

73. I can see why reflexive defenders of the President want a subject change.

[geek tragedy]

75. The policy change itself is not a good one.

Calling the administration 'crappy' however is not intelligent critique, just whining at a 5th grade reading level.

[Romulox]

77. I know, right. But the REAL issue is what personal insults we should fling at the OP!

[geek tragedy]

80. I have no idea what the OP is like as a human being.

But their post was crappy.

[Romulox]

81. I'm just saying I agree with you. Organic food standards be damned, we need to talk about how big

a jerk the OP is. I mean, let's please focus on the important issue.

[merrily]

154. Not only organic food standards, though that is bad enough.

If the body of the OP is correct, the agency ignored the law.

That would not be the first time the agency did that to organic food growers in order to make things hard for that industry and easy for Monsanto.

In a prior instance, the FDA also ignored a law about running GMO seed through the Environmental Protection Agency before allowing it to be sold. The organic farmers sued and the Solicitor General weighed in.

Not on the side of the public or of the the organic food grower or even on the side of the EPA and the law. Just on the side of the FDA and Monsanto.

[merrily]

109. That was one word out of a rather long OP. Zeroing in on that and nothing else is not

evidence of particular intelligence, either.

(I'm not saying that the posters who did not are not intelligent. I know some of them are because I remember other posts of theirs. I am saying only that a certain type of post on this thread is not evidence of intelligence.)

BTW, not only is it not a good change in policy, if the OP is correct, it is a change that was put in place contrary to law. That is a very significant point in the OP that most replies ignored entirely. To me, ignoring the law is even more significant that any specific rule change--and this is not the first time that the FDA has done that.

[geek tragedy]

114. The rest was a quote from someone else's website.

The person quoted someone else, with their only contribution being the word 'crappier.'

[merrily]

121. I saw the OP. The source of the data only strengthens my point.

Posters ignored a lot of info from an ostensibly credible source in order to take personal pot shots at the OP.

And why? Because the OP posted something negative about the administration on a political message board.

[geek tragedy]

131. Here's the deal:

The policy is a step in the wrong direction. However, it's on a minor, minor, minor issue.

And the OP basically ignored the issue itself in the title, going for low grade Obama sucks language instead.

So, the interpretation from most people is that the poster is someone who's looking for an excuse to bash and whine about Obama.

Because, I can guarantee you that OP is nowhere to be found with regard to today's announcement about carbon regulations on Big Coal, or the raise the administration gave millions of home health aides this week. Nor are they anywhere to be seen complaining about Republicans.

In short, it seems like trolling by latching onto any kind of excuse they can get their hands on, without particular concern for the issues.

[merrily]

133. It is not on a minor, minor issue. Also, an agency ignoring the law is not a minor issue.

Besides, that is not what the posts say.



You are trying to defend the indefensible.

And the OP basically ignored the issue itself in the title, going for low grade Obama sucks language instead.

No, you read that into the OP. It says something the administration gets crappier by the day. It says nothing about Obama personally.

Because, I can guarantee you that OP is nowhere to be found with regard to today's announcement about carbon regulations on Big Coal, or the raise the administration gave millions of home health aides this week. Nor are they anywhere to be seen complaining about Republicans.

And now, you're trying to make it about the OP poster instead of about the substance of the OP. Ad hom is not speaking to the issues, either.

[geek tragedy]

135. It's a major issue maybe for people who live at Whole Foods, but

not the entire nation.

[merrily]

143. It's a major issue for people who have medical sensitivities and allergies and also for anyone

intelligent enough to care what crap they put into their bodies.

See, I did that to illustrate that, while anyone can diminish the people who care about what's in their food in order to make this negative action of the Obama administration seem less important, anyone can also diminish those who don't care what's in their food or how their food is mislabeled.

And those who don't care if a government agency that is supposed to protect the general populace violates law in order to protect corporations are even easier to diminish.

[geek tragedy]

145. How many views/recs would this have gotten

had the OP made his title about the issue instead of a scatological insult directed at the administration?

[merrily]

152. Seriously, who cares about the number of recs, let alone the reason for them?

On the other hand, you've certainly been doing your part to keep the thread kicked.

[Generic Other]

137. Maybe if the OP focused on the crappy decison rather than attacking the decider

you and others put off by the headline would be better able to stay on topic. For me the decision seems wrongheaded. It isn't really about anything else. So anything that distracts from the problem is unhelpful. That includes a headline that offends those who might otherwise be sympathetic to the issue.

And it matters to me because my state is waging a propaganda battle against outside interests (Monsanto, Bayer) who do not want to be required to put GMO "Mr. Yuck" stickers on their products. I really do wish the administration would take a stand against GMOs. Is that such a terrible desire?

[geek tragedy]

139. If the title discussed the actual subject, it would have gotten 1/100 the page views. nt

[HangOnKids]

144. No it is not a terrible desire.

It is quite genuine and noble. But hey, the poster you are replying to posts 44x a day everyday for 3 months maybe they are tired?

[Bobbie Jo]

155. That you actually took the time

to make such a calculation is kinda creepy.

[HangOnKids]

159. Basic Math Is Creepy?

Thanks for chiming in. I so look forward to more insight from you.

[Bobbie Jo]

164. Uh, no

Applying your basic math skills to focus on DU'er posting frequency.

Yeah, creepy.

[HangOnKids]

167. See ya Bobbie Jo

Back to ignore!

[Bobbie Jo]

172. lol

[merrily]

161. I've seen posters here derided for too few posts. Now, I see they get derided for too many as well.

Is the number of posts ever the real issue?

If the poster agreed with you, would you still view the number of posts as significant--or would you welcome even more posts?

[HangOnKids]

165. Oh dear merrily

Scram. Thanks! I think we have concluded our discussion.

[merrily]

169. You promise?

FYI, if you're the one who ends the discussion, you're the one who's "Scramming"

[HangOnKids]

170. Bye

SCRAM!

[merrily]

171. Broke your promise already? Oh, my prophetic soul!

[Fumesucker]

222. Did you ever go to grammar school?

Then you are well prepared for DU, _everyone_ gets derided; too fat, too thin, too short, too tall, too smart, to stupid, too athletic, too nerdy, too plain, too pretty, too many posts, too few posts, too liberal, too conservative.

Well, maybe I went overboard a bit about the too athletic thing, they would kick your ass if you derided them to their face anyway.

[merrily]

158. Too late. The administration has taken a stand in favor of Monsanto.

[Generic Other]

160. Then they need to get Michelle to promote it

Because I trust her stance on healthy foods and believe she is sincere.

I need to know if GMOs are served in the white house or on Capitol Hill. My leaders need to serve by example. Like the Japanese emperor eating Fukushima strawberries.

[merrily]

163. Mmmmm. Fukashima strawberries.

[Generic Other]

173. Asian leaders proving they are fearless

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano backs up his statements about the safety of food from Fukushima by attending a farmers market in Tokyo and eating a strawberry grown in Iwaki, about 50 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.



- Japan’s PM Kan and Chinese and Korean Counterparts Eat Fukushima Vegetables and Fruits:

Prime Minister Kan made the Emperor and Empress of Japan visit Fukushima, have them eat Fukushima food and bring some back home as souvenirs for the imperial household that has small children (including the future emperor of Japan).

[merrily]

174. As I said, "mmmm."

If ocean water gets contaminated, we'll all be eating fukashima produce sooner or later.

My friends in Hawaii are especially worried. Who can blame them?

[NickB79]

207. Later that day they picked up shotguns

And went out to hunt down the really big ones that escaped into the forests on their many tentacles and leaf-legs.

It went better than expected: only two Japanese politicians were eaten by mutant fruit, though one was mercilessly sodomized by an angry mutant zucchini yet survived.

[Generic Other]

228. I just spewed strawberry smoothie on my monitor!

[Bobbie Jo]

95. Not to mention....

Total Faux "News" tactic.

Equally smarmy and dishonest when used here.

[blackspade]

195. Much like your post I suppose.

[Scurrilous]

91. So do the OP's on this forum. n/t

[blackspade]

196. Then don't respond.

Try it, you might stay happier.

[MannyGoldstein]

108. The USDA isn't controlled by the White House!

Or if it is, then this is actually a good regulation, because it's a small common-sense step that will create jobs!

Or if it won't, then it's good because it lifts other countries out of poverty!

Or if it doesn't, then it will defeat Terror!

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[blackspade]

197. LOL.

Well played.

[pinboy3niner]

142. Apparently, the flamebait headline got the desired results

[blackspade]

198. It wasn't intended as flamebait.

It was a visceral response at 8:00am to yet another regulatory 'relaxation' that makes it harder to feed my family good food.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

157. Trashing this flamebait thread. I'm sure the ODSers will be proud of you!

Rah! Rah! Rah! Obama haters!!

[blackspade]

199. Sorry you feel that way.

Maybe you should just move on to another thread and let adults talk about things that effect our families.

[djean111]

162. Regarding the coal emissions - yes, there was a proposal.

Good. I will wait to see if anything ACTUALLY HAPPENS.
I no longer am cheered by speeches or proposals or any sort of rhetoric. After all, I was just pointlessly scared because Obama said he wanted to send rockets to Syria, and turns out that was eleventy dimensional chess! haha!
I am much more interested in what actually happens, like this labeling thing.
There is quite a gulf between what someone says, like they will repeal bad old NAFTA stuff, and what they do, like work on a NAFTA on steroids TPP in secrecy.

[xfundy]

203. Look on the bright side.

You don't have to vote for President Obama ever again.

[blackspade]

206. It's hard to think about it that way.

I really was heavily invested in the idea of hope and change.
It's just unfortunate that most of the hope and change was not in the direction I thought it would go.

[Vanje]

223. Speaking of Crap, Thanks to USDA, its whats for dinner.

Another recent USDA decision is to replace federal meat inspectors with "inspectors" hired by the private meat producer. What could go wrong?
Even though in a pilot program, this resulted in a lot of meat with feces in it, the USDA is going to expand the program.
Happy shit-eating America!

Read about it here:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/18866-usda-seeks-to-expand-pilot-program-which-leaves-meat-contaminated-with-fecal-matter

[questionseverything]

226. luckily we can't afford meat

seriously tho,companies inspecting themselves does not work

[woo me with science]

227. kick

for good food.