I Wear Pants;788922 wrote:Then we disagree on the definition of their intended purpose.

So what other products should be removed from shelves then? I'm assuming you'd take all snack cakes, candies, etc off the shelf as there are literally a host of alternatives. Right?

You're starting to get as bad as isadore with your "anyone who disagrees is irrational, irresponsible, and unrealistic" crap.

Disagree on definition of their purpose? It's stated word for word on their mission - the very first part of it. It's a lot more than you just being irrrational and irresponsible, it's about you being flat out wrong and incapable of admitting it.

Let me repeat it for you since you apparently had trouble reading it the first time:
"FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.
http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/whatwedo/default.htm"

Concerning the FDA: I think if it was gotten rid of, I think people would go back to Mom and Pop stores and other LOCAL sellers. I could be wrong though.

I'll say this... If the FDA was ousted, I'd buy more locally. Might even try to get my son work at one of the dairy and chicken farms. Might even make my garden bigger. Just sayin'.

gut;789692 wrote:Disagree on definition of their purpose? It's stated word for word on their mission - the very first part of it. It's a lot more than you just being irrrational and irresponsible, it's about you being flat out wrong and incapable of admitting it.

Let me repeat it for you since you apparently had trouble reading it the first time:
"FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.
http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/whatwedo/default.htm"

We disagree on what that means you dolt. Learn to read.

cruiser_96;789726 wrote:Concerning the FDA: I think if it was gotten rid of, I think people would go back to Mom and Pop stores and other LOCAL sellers. I could be wrong though.

I'll say this... If the FDA was ousted, I'd buy more locally. Might even try to get my son work at one of the dairy and chicken farms. Might even make my garden bigger. Just sayin'.

How does the FDA keep you from buying locally or having your son work at a dairy or chicken farm or making your garden bigger?

I Wear Pants;789758 wrote:We disagree on what that means you dolt. Learn to read.

No, it's pretty clear and unambiguous English. Or perhaps you need me to also provide a definition of safety.

Also, allow me to post that definition one more time with a new emphasis:
"FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.

I think what you fail to comprehend is there is a balance between benefits and risks, and with regard to transfats there were perfectly suitable and healthier alternatives available. Most consumers never even noticed the switch.

I feel "protecting the public health" is more in spirit with what I've stated. Assuring that certain quality/safety regulations are met but not deciding all together what people purchase.

Of course you aren't of the opinion that personal liberty to choose what you eat, drink, smoke, etc is a good thing so you feel "well what, no one needs that" instead of "why are they making everyone's choice?"

What you fail to comprehend is that there are many people (myself included) who believe we should be allowed to take risks as long as they don't infringe the rights of others. By your logic we should also ban skydiving, bungie jumping, and the like since there are "perfectly suitable" and safer alternatives.

I Wear Pants;789758 wrote: How does the FDA keep you from buying locally or having your son work at a dairy or chicken farm or making your garden bigger?

It doesn't. My point was if the FDA was gotten rid of, we'd... I would... start buying from people I know/trust. If my son works for a company, it is more likely that I would have inside info as to how things are done "down on the farm". I'm not a huge fan of eating chemicals. Currently, as it stands, I trust the FDA. If they weren't there, I would move to someone I did trust... like a local farmer. Again, Just sayin'.

I Wear Pants;789797 wrote:I feel "protecting the public health" is more in spirit with what I've stated. Assuring that certain quality/safety regulations are met but not deciding all together what people purchase.

Where is the FDA telling you what to eat or where have I suggested they are? Perfectly acceptable substitutes to trans fats were available. That has a positive health benefit and I fail to see how your liberties, right to choose what you eat, or right to get fat was negatively impacted in any way.

And, again, when your lifestyle choices have consequences for the taxpayer, the taxpayer has every right to regulate your lifestyle choices. No different than your insurance company would do. And, surprise, the federal govt is providing insurance. And rather than testing every individual, they're removing an unneeded item that hardly anyone even missed. I think that's entirely in line with protecting the public health.

It's become so cliche to claim "they're infringing my liberties". It's nothing more than whining for smaller govt these days (which I agree with, yes). But it's use is so often frequently misguided and off-target, as it is here with you. Seriously, when they take away Krispy Kreme you can bitch. They aren't perfect but they do their job pretty well.

Why can't you say it? You expect a product to be safe when you buy it. You expect that aspirin formula to not kill you (and yes, it's aspirin). I would gain infinitely more respect for you if you'd just admit you were wrong and stop feeling butthurt because I made you look like an ass for trying to flame me.

cruiser_96;789844 wrote:It doesn't. My point was if the FDA was gotten rid of, we'd... I would... start buying from people I know/trust. .

That's not remotely feasible for the consumer between food, drugs, and everything else - how do you propose buying even cough medicine you can trust? That's partly why we have the FDA in the first place. And no matter how much you trust Bob the farmer, it doesn't mean when times get tough he's not going to go with a cheaper, unsafe pesticide.

gut;789982 wrote:Where is the FDA telling you what to eat or where have I suggested they are? Perfectly acceptable substitutes to trans fats were available. That has a positive health benefit and I fail to see how your liberties, right to choose what you eat, or right to get fat was negatively impacted in any way.

And, again, when your lifestyle choices have consequences for the taxpayer, the taxpayer has every right to regulate your lifestyle choices. No different than your insurance company would do. And, surprise, the federal govt is providing insurance. And rather than testing every individual, they're removing an unneeded item that hardly anyone even missed. I think that's entirely in line with protecting the public health.

It's become so cliche to claim "they're infringing my liberties". It's nothing more than whining for smaller govt these days (which I agree with, yes). But it's use is so often frequently misguided and off-target, as it is here with you. Seriously, when they take away Krispy Kreme you can bitch. They aren't perfect but they do their job pretty well.

Why can't you say it? You expect a product to be safe when you buy it. You expect that aspirin formula to not kill you (and yes, it's aspirin). I would gain infinitely more respect for you if you'd just admit you were wrong and stop feeling butthurt because I made you look like an ass for trying to flame me.

I could argue that any choice you make has an impact for the taxpayer. Everything can be linked to some cost or another. Would you have us regulate everything?

I don't give a shit to have the respect of some random internet person. I meant what I said. I expect the aspirin to be aspirin. That is it. I do not think that every product needs to be inherently "safe" just that it be properly labled as what it is. Fireworks aren't "safe" but I don't think they should be removed from the market (but but, they cause fires and injuries that cost taxpayers!!! BAN THEM!).

gut;789987 wrote:That's not remotely feasible for the consumer between food, drugs, and everything else - how do you propose buying even cough medicine you can trust? That's partly why we have the FDA in the first place. And no matter how much you trust Bob the farmer, it doesn't mean when times get tough he's not going to go with a cheaper, unsafe pesticide.

This I do agree with. And besides, local isn't always better even though it's sort of turned into that meaning recently. You should not care where a product came from as long as it's the quality you desire at a price you accept (before someone brings it up, yes sometimes there are other considerations like moral ones if say a company was using slave labor or something but generally what I said stands).

gut;789987 wrote:That's not remotely feasible for the consumer between food, drugs, and everything else - how do you propose buying even cough medicine you can trust? That's partly why we have the FDA in the first place. And no matter how much you trust Bob the farmer, it doesn't mean when times get tough he's not going to go with a cheaper, unsafe pesticide.

I think you assume I use cough syrup. In all honesty, I recogmize that the man in my mirror is in charge of my health. Do coughs and colds come... Yup. Does heartburn sneak up on me... Yup. But, you should know, Bragg's Apple Cider Vinegar gets rid of the heartburn for me. As for the coughs and colds, I'd chalk it up like a bad hair cut... Lasts just over a week, eh?

And another think I recognize... I spelled recogmize in the above post!!!

Another "thing" you recognize. IDIOT.

And not everyone would agree that vinegar works as well for heartburn, etc. So as long as your vinegar is available why let the others being available bother you?

cruiser_96;789844 wrote:Currently, as it stands, I trust the FDA.

The question I haven't seen asked is why?

We drug test every applicant at my workplace, and have random drug testing for current employees.

As for the cost excuse, that is false, as the tests are pretty cheap.

We use Intercept Oral Fluid Drug Screening, which the person just swabs in their mouth and then it sent off to be processed.

We also had ones in the past that were pretty much like pregnancy tests, as they would turn a color right on the spot to alert you to drug use.

These tests are very cheap now a days.

ManO'War;798575 wrote:We drug test every applicant at my workplace, and have random drug testing for current employees.

As for the cost excuse, that is false, as the tests are pretty cheap.

We use Intercept Oral Fluid Drug Screening, which the person just swabs in their mouth and then it sent off to be processed.

We also had ones in the past that were pretty much like pregnancy tests, as they would turn a color right on the spot to alert you to drug use.

These tests are very cheap now a days.

Yes the tests are cheap but the inefficient costs come about because a lot of money is spent before one drug user is found because it is a myth that all these people are on drugs. Also, just because there are drug tests does not mean they aren't passing the tests and still doing drugs.

Furthermore, the reason there are 4th amendment issues is because, unlike your private boss searching you to see if you do drugs, the people doing the tests on TANF recipients are government agents. Republicans are supposed to be against giving power to the government to search individual persons but alas their true colors show once again.

BoatShoes;798687 wrote:Furthermore, the reason there are 4th amendment issues is because, unlike your private boss searching you to see if you do drugs, the people doing the tests on TANF recipients are government agents. Republicans are supposed to be against giving power to the government to search individual persons but alas their true colors show once again.

Apparently it's acceptable for liberals to advocate the confiscation of private wealth by Big Government and the subsequent redistribution of that wealth to the drug abusing welfare recipient, but it's inappropriate for conservatives to expect that same government to insure that taxpayer money isn't being abused by the welfare recipient.

True colors indeed.

believer;798708 wrote:Apparently it's acceptable for liberals to advocate the confiscation of private wealth by Big Government and the subsequent redistribution of that wealth to the drug abusing welfare recipient, but it's inappropriate for conservatives to expect that same government to insure that taxpayer money isn't being abused by the welfare recipient.

True colors indeed.

How many times do we have to go over the word "confiscate?" Do you believe in the representative democracy that our founders created or not? (And for some reason I expect someone to say "not a democracy it's a republic derr" Yes of course this is true, a Constitutional federal republic employing representative democracy wherein the People are the Sovereign") Or, like Robert Nozick do you think it to be illegitimate? If you think it to be illegitimate that is fine but let me hear you say that James Madison was full of shit. You can use the word confiscate from now on without me complaining if you say James Madison was a retard and a thief.

Also again, you assume I support drug abuse on TANF when I've merely suggested alternatives to drug tests. Also again you imbed in your statement the false assumption that there are lots of drug abusers on TANF when more people use illegal drugs on Medicare. Likewise, if you think that "big government" is justified to ensure that taxpayer funds be used more wisely you have a lot bigger bones to pick and much more reasonable expectations of privacy to invade than the people on TANF.

BoatShoes;798741 wrote:How many times do we have to go over the word "confiscate?" Do you believe in the representative democracy that our founders created or not? (And for some reason I expect someone to say "not a democracy it's a republic derr" Yes of course this is true, a Constitutional federal republic employing representative democracy wherein the People are the Sovereign") Or, like Robert Nozick do you think it to be illegitimate? If you think it to be illegitimate that is fine but let me hear you say that James Madison was full of shit. You can use the word confiscate from now on without me complaining if you say James Madison was a retard and a thief.

Governments must exist for the common good (IE: national defense, law enforcement, infrastructure needed for free flow of private commerce, etc.). Governments must tax to insure these services are rendered.

But I'm reasonably certain that our nation's founders - including Madison - never envisioned nor expected a government so large and so intrusive that the aforementioned services also began including massive social welfare services where a cradle-to-grave entitlement mentality manifested itself among We the People. When government goes beyond law enforcement and begins to provide for everyone's needs, it can only do so through confiscation of private wealth. You call it tax collection. I call it wealth redistribution.

BoatShoes;798741 wrote:Also again, you assume I support drug abuse on TANF when I've merely suggested alternatives to drug tests. Also again you imbed in your statement the false assumption that there are lots of drug abusers on TANF when more people use illegal drugs on Medicare.

I don't give a damn if it's TANF, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, or whatever entitlement program we're talking about.

You pointed out the hypocrisy of "Republicans" for having the audacity of wanting government to intrude on people receiving welfare assistance by asking public agents to render drug tests upon those who receive the assistance. I marvel over liberals who think government should provide for our needs and have no issue allowing the expansion of government to do so. And when that occurs it can only do so through even more taxation upon the private sector.

If we've decided that the confiscation - oops tax collection - of even more private wealth to fund expanded public services is a legitimate function of government, then it is only fair to make sure the wealth producers are getting a fair return on their public investment.

believer;798768 wrote:Governments must exist for the common good (IE: national defense, law enforcement, infrastructure needed for free flow of private commerce, etc.). Governments must tax to insure these services are rendered.

But I'm reasonably certain that our nation's founders - including Madison - never envisioned nor expected a government so large and so intrusive that the aforementioned services also began including massive social welfare services where a cradle-to-grave entitlement mentality manifested itself among We the People. When government goes beyond law enforcement and begins to provide for everyone's needs, it can only do so through confiscation of private wealth. You call it tax collection. I call it wealth redistribution.



I don't give a damn if it's TANF, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, or whatever entitlement program we're talking about.

You pointed out the hypocrisy of "Republicans" for having the audacity of wanting government to intrude on people receiving welfare assistance by asking public agents to render drug tests upon those who receive the assistance. I marvel over liberals who think government should provide for our needs and have no issue allowing the expansion of government to do so. And when that occurs it can only do so through even more taxation upon the private sector.

If we've decided that the confiscation - oops tax collection - of even more private wealth to fund expanded public services is a legitimate function of government, then it is only fair to make sure the wealth producers are getting a fair return on their public investment.

Winning!

I Wear Pants;798077 wrote:Another "thing" you recognize. IDIOT.

And not everyone would agree that vinegar works as well for heartburn, etc. So as long as your vinegar is available why let the others being available bother you?

That was funny!!! Well done, Pants.

dwccrew;798956 wrote:Winning!

Just a bit - wow. That might have been the retort of the year.

When I worked as a poor clerk at a truck stop in the summer, we didn't accept food stamps for certain purchases (and were allowed to per federal rules). It wasn't a Constitutional issue, if you accept handouts you have to abide by the program, there's nothing even remotely related to the 4th Amendment re this.

Question: For those that are of the "shouldn't be spending money on drugs while receiving our money" opinion. Do you feel that people on welfare or other programs should also be forbidden from purchasing alcohol/tobacco? And I don't mean to actually propose that something like that would even be possible but in theory would you like that?

I Wear Pants;806382 wrote:Question: For those that are of the "shouldn't be spending money on drugs while receiving our money" opinion. Do you feel that people on welfare or other programs should also be forbidden from purchasing alcohol/tobacco? And I don't mean to actually propose that something like that would even be possible but in theory would you like that?

Sure. It's one thing to receive our funds via taxes and do something in return (ie: congress person, senator, etc.). It's an entirely different think ( ) to "leach", no?

Representatives do something to "earn" our tax money. I have very little problems with how they spend their salary. If you did nothing to receive the someone else's money, you should receive the bare minimum.

Do you think otherwise?

I Wear Pants;806382 wrote:Question: For those that are of the "shouldn't be spending money on drugs while receiving our money" opinion. Do you feel that people on welfare or other programs should also be forbidden from purchasing alcohol/tobacco? And I don't mean to actually propose that something like that would even be possible but in theory would you like that?

Also throw in cell phone, satellite TV, and internet.

majorspark;806520 wrote:Also throw in cell phone, satellite TV, and internet.

You're just prejudiced against poor people. People on welfare need luxuries too.