Obama signs bill to overhaul nation's...

Obama signs bill to overhaul nation's food safety; Republicans question cost

There are 95 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Jan 4, 2011, titled Obama signs bill to overhaul nation's food safety; Republicans question cost. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Foreshadowing the coming power struggles between the White House and a more Republican Congress, President Barack Obama on Tuesday signed a $1.4 billion overhaul of the nation's food safety system as some lawmakers complained that it's too expensive and threatened its funding.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#85 Jan 8, 2011
h_stigletz wrote:
<quoted text>dont listen to Fox news, dont listen to Conservative talk radio,like me i dont listen to pro Castro radio,liberal talk radio,and MSNBC,beautiful thing about America,you have a choice of media to follow,
LOL!!!

Like anyone credible believes that.

You seem to share the Rethuglican talking points, must be like the virgin birth- a mystery to everyone except those of us who think for a living.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#86 Jan 8, 2011
IrishMN wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are incorrect.
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
Thomas Jefferson
Oh, so I guess after two centuries and the expansion of our nation 10 fold, as well as a population increase to 308 million means in your view of the world we should be still living with open sewers in Manhattan, no paved roads, and living as country gentleman.

LOL!!!

We decided to become an even MORE socialized nation in 1913 when we instituted a progressive income tax.

I suppose you disagree with taxation as well?

So we'll cancel the fire truck and police response next time you need it- and pour cement down the sewer feed from your house so you cannot partake in our socialized sewer system. LOL!!!

I guess our official motto "E Pluribus Unum"- "From Many, One" is also only a joke to you?

Sorry, but we were founded as a union of states, and if that weren't so, then howcome all states are subordinate to the republic?

Sad to report, but the constitution isn't an a la carte menu which you get to pick and choose from.

"We the people..." "....more perfect union" " ....common defense" "...general welfare" are all statements of collective unity.

We are the United States of America, not the United Corporations of America- a nation of laws, NOT a nation of men- sorry to deflate your housing bubble, Mr. Sachs, but liberals will be taking back our country from the corporate fascists determined to destroy us.

Since: Jun 10

Morristown, TN

#87 Jan 8, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so I guess after two centuries and the expansion of our nation 10 fold, as well as a population increase to 308 million means in your view of the world we should be still living with open sewers in Manhattan, no paved roads, and living as country gentleman.
LOL!!!
We decided to become an even MORE socialized nation in 1913 when we instituted a progressive income tax.
I suppose you disagree with taxation as well?
So we'll cancel the fire truck and police response next time you need it- and pour cement down the sewer feed from your house so you cannot partake in our socialized sewer system. LOL!!!
I guess our official motto "E Pluribus Unum"- "From Many, One" is also only a joke to you?
Sorry, but we were founded as a union of states, and if that weren't so, then howcome all states are subordinate to the republic?
Sad to report, but the constitution isn't an a la carte menu which you get to pick and choose from.
"We the people..." "....more perfect union" " ....common defense" "...general welfare" are all statements of collective unity.
We are the United States of America, not the United Corporations of America- a nation of laws, NOT a nation of men- sorry to deflate your housing bubble, Mr. Sachs, but liberals will be taking back our country from the corporate fascists determined to destroy us.
you are hilarious!
Bruin

Black Canyon City, AZ

#88 Jan 8, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so I guess after two centuries and the expansion of our nation 10 fold, as well as a population increase to 308 million means in your view of the world we should be still living with open sewers in Manhattan, no paved roads, and living as country gentleman.
LOL!!!
We decided to become an even MORE socialized nation in 1913 when we instituted a progressive income tax.
I suppose you disagree with taxation as well?
So we'll cancel the fire truck and police response next time you need it- and pour cement down the sewer feed from your house so you cannot partake in our socialized sewer system. LOL!!!
I guess our official motto "E Pluribus Unum"- "From Many, One" is also only a joke to you?
Sorry, but we were founded as a union of states, and if that weren't so, then howcome all states are subordinate to the republic?
Sad to report, but the constitution isn't an a la carte menu which you get to pick and choose from.
"We the people..." "....more perfect union" " ....common defense" "...general welfare" are all statements of collective unity.
We are the United States of America, not the United Corporations of America- a nation of laws, NOT a nation of men- sorry to deflate your housing bubble, Mr. Sachs, but liberals will be taking back our country from the corporate fascists determined to destroy us.
Carry Poop, you spew out more crapola than the entire sewage system of New York City. Carry Poop is an apt name for you.
Constitution

Manhattan Beach, CA

#89 Jan 8, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so I guess after two centuries and the expansion of our nation 10 fold, as well as a population increase to 308 million means in your view of the world we should be still living with open sewers in Manhattan, no paved roads, and living as country gentleman.
LOL!!!
We decided to become an even MORE socialized nation in 1913 when we instituted a progressive income tax.
I suppose you disagree with taxation as well?
So we'll cancel the fire truck and police response next time you need it- and pour cement down the sewer feed from your house so you cannot partake in our socialized sewer system. LOL!!!
I guess our official motto "E Pluribus Unum"- "From Many, One" is also only a joke to you?
Sorry, but we were founded as a union of states, and if that weren't so, then howcome all states are subordinate to the republic?
Sad to report, but the constitution isn't an a la carte menu which you get to pick and choose from.
"We the people..." "....more perfect union" " ....common defense" "...general welfare" are all statements of collective unity.
We are the United States of America, not the United Corporations of America- a nation of laws, NOT a nation of men- sorry to deflate your housing bubble, Mr. Sachs, but liberals will be taking back our country from the corporate fascists determined to destroy us.
The states are subordinate to the republic? What bizarro world social studies and civics classes did you attend?

The states are the republic. The United States of America. Get it? The states gave birth to the federal government. Look it up.

Sure the federal government has used financial and legislative extortion in an attempt to eliminate state power, but the states are finally beginning to reassert themselves, as evidenced by the rejection of, and lawsuits against, the healthcare reform sham that President Barry, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid attempted to stick them with.

Keep believing in your social liberals, but someday you may realize that they have been as much a part of the corporate takeover of America as the neo-con right.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#90 Jan 8, 2011
Constitution wrote:
<quoted text>The states are subordinate to the republic? What bizarro world social studies and civics classes did you attend?
The states are the republic. The United States of America. Get it? The states gave birth to the federal government. Look it up.
Sure the federal government has used financial and legislative extortion in an attempt to eliminate state power, but the states are finally beginning to reassert themselves, as evidenced by the rejection of, and lawsuits against, the healthcare reform sham that President Barry, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid attempted to stick them with.
Keep believing in your social liberals, but someday you may realize that they have been as much a part of the corporate takeover of America as the neo-con right.
Sorry, but you stand corrected. The states DID give rise to the federal government, but as we exist today, all federal law is automatically adopted throughout the land.

If we had each state adopting it's own laws to suit it's own agenda, there would no longer be a United States, now would there?

We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. States beyond the original 13 colonies were granted their own state constitutions in a measure to placate statists living in those states, but the very nature of statehood is predicated on that state adopting federalism.

Otherwise, what would be the point be in each state having representation in Washington?

So don't keep that hard-on for civil war anytime soon, General, states can still secede from the union anytime they want, as long as they realize any support from anyone else in forming their own nation won't be forthcoming. They lose the military protection, will have to create their own currency, and so much more.

So, either we're arguing semantics, or your point is moot. Which is it?

LOL!!!
Bruin

Black Canyon City, AZ

#91 Jan 8, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you stand corrected. The states DID give rise to the federal government, but as we exist today, all federal law is automatically adopted throughout the land.
If we had each state adopting it's own laws to suit it's own agenda, there would no longer be a United States, now would there?
We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. States beyond the original 13 colonies were granted their own state constitutions in a measure to placate statists living in those states, but the very nature of statehood is predicated on that state adopting federalism.
Otherwise, what would be the point be in each state having representation in Washington?
So don't keep that hard-on for civil war anytime soon, General, states can still secede from the union anytime they want, as long as they realize any support from anyone else in forming their own nation won't be forthcoming. They lose the military protection, will have to create their own currency, and so much more.
So, either we're arguing semantics, or your point is moot. Which is it?
LOL!!!
As much as I hate to disagree with a scholar of your gigantic proportions, I feel that I must remind you that every state can, and does, pass laws to suit it's own agenda.
It's true that we are touted to be a naqtion of laws, but when the federal government refuses to enforce it's own laws regarding protection of our borders from illegal entry of aliens, then states must pass and enforce their own laws to compensate. The decision of whether their is merit in these laws is not controlable by the Federal government, but is the purveiw of the Supreme Court.
As far as secession is concerned, if the majority of the states with the most wealth and manpower wish to seceed, there is very little that a weakened Fed Gov can do about , except for ordering it's remaining troops into bein massacred.
Bruin

Black Canyon City, AZ

#92 Jan 8, 2011
P.S. After rereading, I noted a number of misspellings and typos. You may comment on them if you have no counter arguments. Go for it Carry Poop!
Constitution

Manhattan Beach, CA

#93 Jan 8, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you stand corrected. The states DID give rise to the federal government, but as we exist today, all federal law is automatically adopted throughout the land.
If we had each state adopting it's own laws to suit it's own agenda, there would no longer be a United States, now would there?
We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. States beyond the original 13 colonies were granted their own state constitutions in a measure to placate statists living in those states, but the very nature of statehood is predicated on that state adopting federalism.
Otherwise, what would be the point be in each state having representation in Washington?
So don't keep that hard-on for civil war anytime soon, General, states can still secede from the union anytime they want, as long as they realize any support from anyone else in forming their own nation won't be forthcoming. They lose the military protection, will have to create their own currency, and so much more.
So, either we're arguing semantics, or your point is moot. Which is it?
LOL!!!
All federal law is adopted nationwide, if the states choose to go along. If they don't, they can refuse. See the current lawsuits against President Barry-Care. States rights.

With the federal government having proven to be a financial burden on the states, it would not be surprising to see more refusal to play along with the feds. Again, states rights.

The feds hold federal money out as a carrot to the states in order to get them to play along. As they continue to destroy the currency, there is less incentive for the states to go along with all of the federal mandates.

The United States of America, not the States of the Federal Government.

“I am always right.”

Since: Oct 09

Former MN Taxpayer

#94 Jan 8, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you stand corrected. The states DID give rise to the federal government, but as we exist today, all federal law is automatically adopted throughout the land.
If we had each state adopting it's own laws to suit it's own agenda, there would no longer be a United States, now would there?
We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. States beyond the original 13 colonies were granted their own state constitutions in a measure to placate statists living in those states, but the very nature of statehood is predicated on that state adopting federalism.
Otherwise, what would be the point be in each state having representation in Washington?
So don't keep that hard-on for civil war anytime soon, General, states can still secede from the union anytime they want, as long as they realize any support from anyone else in forming their own nation won't be forthcoming. They lose the military protection, will have to create their own currency, and so much more.
So, either we're arguing semantics, or your point is moot. Which is it?
LOL!!!
Thankfully you are the only smart person left on Earth.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#95 Jan 8, 2011
Nah, I'm not a spelling Nazi, Ruin, only the Reich wingers are when they have no reasonable retort.

Sure, any state can secede, but I highly doubt any state would vote for it, you'd never get enough people to go for it, so it's kind of a moot point.

The idea of establising a new currency, banking system, taxation for roads and everything else everyone enjoys due to taxation, police, fire, military, establishing embassies all over the world, the chaos that would result would destroy the individual state from within.

Moving vans would render the place empty in no time.
Bruin

Black Canyon City, AZ

#96 Jan 8, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
Nah, I'm not a spelling Nazi, Ruin, only the Reich wingers are when they have no reasonable retort.
Sure, any state can secede, but I highly doubt any state would vote for it, you'd never get enough people to go for it, so it's kind of a moot point.
The idea of establising a new currency, banking system, taxation for roads and everything else everyone enjoys due to taxation, police, fire, military, establishing embassies all over the world, the chaos that would result would destroy the individual state from within.
Moving vans would render the place empty in no time.
Damn, Carry Poo, I don't like to keep disagreeing with you, but you see, the states are already paying for all those services, through the taxation of their citizens who send their hard earned money to the Fed Gov, which keeps a portion of it to pay standing bureacracies and unions, and then sends a small portion of it back to the states. Where in the world do you think the Fed Gov gets it's money from? The states existed before the Fed Gov was dreamed of.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#97 Jan 9, 2011
Bruin wrote:
<quoted text>Damn, Carry Poo, I don't like to keep disagreeing with you, but you see, the states are already paying for all those services, through the taxation of their citizens who send their hard earned money to the Fed Gov, which keeps a portion of it to pay standing bureacracies and unions, and then sends a small portion of it back to the states. Where in the world do you think the Fed Gov gets it's money from? The states existed before the Fed Gov was dreamed of.
And some states get alot more than others, disproportionally, too.

So go ahead and secede, and see if tax collections "in state" only can support your lifestyle as it is now.

LOL!!!

That I'd pay to see.
Bruin

Black Canyon City, AZ

#98 Jan 9, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
And some states get alot more than others, disproportionally, too.
So go ahead and secede, and see if tax collections "in state" only can support your lifestyle as it is now.
LOL!!!
That I'd pay to see.
Are you telling me that life ain't fair? Dammit, when did that happen? BTW, who make the division of those few dollars that the Fed Gov sends back to the states? What, are you saying the Fed. Gov. does that?
Constitution

Hermosa Beach, CA

#99 Jan 9, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
And some states get alot more than others, disproportionally, too.
So go ahead and secede, and see if tax collections "in state" only can support your lifestyle as it is now.
LOL!!!
That I'd pay to see.
Why do you keep bringing up secession? States disagreeing with federal mandates is not the same as seceding from the union.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jack Kingston Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Aide of Florida lawmaker: Outspoken survivors o... Feb '18 Pat Robertson s F... 2
News Milo Yiannopoulos, Larry Wilmore go head-to-hea... (Feb '17) Mar '17 C Kersey 15
News NBCa s Katy Tur tells a Trump-backing congressm... (Sep '16) Sep '16 Go Blue Forever 4
News The unstoppable Donald Trump (Feb '16) Feb '16 Abandon Ship 1
News Mark James Miller: Why Republicans Wage War On ... (May '15) May '15 Tazo 1
News News Guide: Highlights of Georgia elections (Nov '14) Nov '14 Mykro 5
News Republicans demand President Obama institute a ... (Oct '14) Oct '14 TeaBagging for Am... 3