Typo, sorry. I meant campaign. Save his campaign.
Okay, let’s say we go that route. We eliminate government oversight, and Good Housekeeping steps in to the regulation vacuum. So… how exactly is Good Housekeeping turning a profit on this deal? Do restaurants have to pay for GH to come by and inspect them? How much of a fee are they being hit with for this service? Can new restaurants afford to get inspected? How do we know that Good Housekeeping is on the up and up, and isn’t just auctioning its seal off to the highest bidder? How do we know that Good Housekeeping was there in the first place? What’s to stop a restaurant from just slapping the seal on the window, regardless of whether they’ve been inspected or not?
And above all, what does this system offer me, as a consumer, that is superior to our current system? How does having to hunt down the few restaurants that have gone to the trouble of getting private certification make my life better?
I question how you are able to know either of these for a fact.
Well, that’s the issue, though, isn’t it? Sure, if a restaurant can’t keep its dining room clean, then it probably isn’t doing such a hot job in the kitchen, either. But if you go to a place where the dining room looks nice and fancy, and all the silverware is shiny, do you ask to take a tour of their kitchens before you’ll eat there? Or do you just assume that, since the front room looks clean, the back room must be clean, too? Can you see that there’s really no foundation for this assumption? Just because a business is smart enough to vacuum the front everyday, doesn’t mean they’re conscientious enough to throw out food when it’s becoming spoiled.
Also, have you ever lived for any length of time in a country that didn’t have an infrastructure of health codes and regular inspections? You may not “feel the need” for the government to look out for you when you eat out, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t materially benefiting from it none the less. And if you’ve never lived under a different system, you may not be able to perceive the benefits you’re deriving from this one.
No, I realize that, it’s that many conservatives pretend to be libertarian because it allows them to oppose the Civil Rights Bill without being racist, or have a principled stand against taxes even though they really are just sock puppets for the rich.
I want to see the look on conservatives’ faces when Rand Paul tells them he wants to legalize prostitution and gambling and let gay people marry.
In Oregon, food stalls are licensed and anyone who works there is required to have a food handler’s permit. Where do you live?
What does that have to do with inspections? I live in CA.
and I went off the reservation. sorry. 
His campaign came out and corrected that. He now supports the civil rights acts and would do nothing to over turn them if he could. now that’s principle! :smack:
farmer’s markets in CA are subject to food regulations within the cities they are held.
one nearby my house recently had to put up signs about idiots who kept binging their pups. I love dogs and brought one with me almost every where, but most dog owners are clueless. so you see, the health dept is in charge of enforcing the regulations governing the vending of food items; packaged and cooked on the spot.
And in other Paul news, even though he was schedule to be on Meet the Press this weekend, he’s pulled out at the last minute.
Did he campaign on overturning it? Why would he waste time on such an obvious non-starter?
Now that’s change we can believe in. From media whore to invisible man in 3.0 seconds. WOW!
Well, I think any business open to the public at large should follow the law. The law is that a business must not illegally discriminate, but may discriminate legally. Private clubs may legally discriminate, but I do boycott them and mention it at all times the club comes up, whether it lays a turd in the punchbowl or not: the Masters golf tournament is held at a club that prohibits women members, they are assholes. I mention it when at a bar and the Masters is on.
Rand Paul is saying that he wants to change existing laws passed in the wake of the civil war 150 years ago and tweaked since then to make it perfectly legal to discriminate in business on the basis of race, gender, religion, ethnicity etc for a business. So an airline that uses public airports can refuse passenger service to a Jew without legal repercussions? Can refuse to hire Asians? A Catholic? How about a fucking libertarian?
Sorry, Herr Paul, but just because you and your racist turd friends can come up with a rationale that doesn’t sound blatantly racist or homophobic doesn’t mean that I am not free to conclude that tea baggers aren’t closet racists the same way gay bashers are usually closet gays. You guys are only fooling yourselves. We are sick of your racist and hateful shit and we will continue to call you guys on it. Not only will we call you on it, but we will vote against people who would weaken and remove anti-discrimination laws.
It is my opinion that everyone who is against anti-discrimination laws is a racist fuck.
Most racists, and fascists, and homophobes live in denial. They pretend they honestly are in ignorance of what motivates them. Denial is an active response to uncomfortable truths.
Well, now, if a bunch of gay guys want to have a yearly contest and compete for a well cut sports coat in a fashionable color, I see nothing wrong with that.
I disagree. As I’ve said in this thread, I just think Rand Paul and his ilk are naive ideologues. They’re so in love with the purity of their utopian vision they’re blinded to the real-world suffering it would bring about.
However, I do think this blindness does make them “useful idiots” for other elements on the right who do have a racist agenda. Just as the same libertarian ideas provide ideological cover for the class warfare practiced by the conservative moneyed elite. The libertarian wing of the Republican party isn’t *intentionally *racist or exploitative, but their refusal to engage with the inherent complexity of real-world social and economic policy creates an atmosphere where racism and exploitation can thrive.
I don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.
I don’t think you should, or shouldn’t, do anything. Whatever you want to do is up to you.
If you had a point in there, please try again. I missed it.
I don’t eat those things in 3rd world countries, for the very reasons you describe above. That’s one of the ‘costs’ of travelling to those countries of which I describe above.
I don’t want to try and eat fresh lettuce and strawberries in 3rd world countries, so you can save your money.
Do you get it? Do you get the point?
Salad is safe to eat here because of laws? Are you sure about that? We’re getting to the root of the issue here. If so, you’ve answered the ‘Why does the left love Big Government so much’ OP, as well as a bunch of other OPs.
How about cars? Would no cars be sold if there weren’t airbag legislature? Would factories in Michigan and Tennessee sit idle, with workers twiddling their thumbs, until a politician in D.C. put ink on paper signing airbag legislation into effect? And then customers would stampede into dealerships the moment afterwards, the factories would spring to life, and all would be well?
How about buying used electronics on eBay? Billions of dollars gets transacted that way. Were those people just sitting by, waiting to do business with each other, and only sprung into action a law was passed somewhere saying it was OK?
How about investing? Was it safe to invest in Enron, or with Bernie Madoff, because their activities were regulated by the SEC?
Suppose on one side there are lettuce growers, who stand to make or lose millions of dollars based on whether their lettuce is grown and sold safely. On the other side there are people like you and me who like to eat lettuce. We may have varying standards of cleaniness required, appearance, handling methods, etc., but we basically want clean healthy food.
There is no government legislation or ‘laws’ mandating cleaniness of lettuce. Let’s pretend we live in the United States of Liberty where a strong Constitution forbids the government in getting involved in such private transactions.
What might happen next?
He never actually said otherwise. His original statement was that he supported the Civil Rights Act but didn’t like the one section banning private discrimination, and he never said that he’d try to overturn the law. It’s one thing to criticize the guy for the positions he takes. It’s another thing to criticize him for positions he doesn’t take.
That’s cause they could eat an entire market’s worth of food if you binge them enough! :eek: