REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Judge: 'This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one’s choice'

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 19:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2151
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, September 24, 2011 12:29 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!



Dictator Hussein Obama Soetoro bans fresh milk under penalty of death

WI Judge: No “Fundamental Right” to Own a Cow, or Consume Its Milk…Am I Making Myself Clear?
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2011/9/15/wi-judge-to-zinnik
er-ftcldf-no-fundamental-right-to-own-a-co.html

http://3wheeledcheese.com/category/videos-and-podcasts/raw-milk-and-ch
eese
/


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 24, 2011 1:30 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Diseases that pasteurization can prevent include tuberculosis, brucellosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, and Q-fever; it also kills the harmful bacteria Salmonella, Listeria, Yersinia, Campylobacter, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli 157 among others.

Carry on!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 25, 2011 4:27 AM

DREAMTROVE


And yet I gotta side with Pirate News here, not just as a consumer of raw milk, but also as someone who has read the constitution, in which it does not say, "And this body will determine what foods people can eat, so that it can ban natural foods because the natural world has disease risks, which being biological in nature have a contagious possibility that the cancer risks of chemically processed food does not, thereby, the right to consume food is not a basic human right, but a power granted to the people by the government which the government can then take away again if it so feels like."


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 25, 2011 8:13 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


My friend can have milk as long as its not pasturized, for some reason she gets ill if she drinks pasturized milk, why? Anyways that's how her body works so she gets milk from a farm owned by her friend so she can have it not pasturized. She was thrilled when she figured out that she wasn't allergic to dairy because who wants to miss out on icecream?

I think the current rule is that if you're selling it in the store it needs to be pasturized for safety. But if you're giving it to friends/drinking your cow's milk/selling it under the table then you can do what you want, but you must make sure that anyone you share it with knows it isn't pasturized. Maybe I'm wrong about the current rules, but that's what I've heard.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 9:33 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
And yet I gotta side with Pirate News here, not just as a consumer of raw milk, but also as someone who has read the constitution, in which it does not say, "And this body will determine what foods people can eat, so that it can ban natural foods because the natural world has disease risks, which being biological in nature have a contagious possibility that the cancer risks of chemically processed food does not, thereby, the right to consume food is not a basic human right, but a power granted to the people by the government which the government can then take away again if it so feels like."



I would re-read that part about general welfare.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 10:16 AM

BYTEMITE


Letter of the law versus spirit of the law. Legal students would agree that the intent of the laws when they were set down was important - pasteurization didn't exist in western civilization before 1865, therefore a pasteurization requirement can't fall under the general welfare clause in the constitution (which itself was in the preamble, and not an actual legal clause - useful for establishing intention for the constitution, but NOT itself legislative or conclusive).

You would have to have a separate law to account for this, passed under the accepted legislative measures. Judges can not legislate, therefore the judge has to point to either a specific legal statute OR legal precedence.

Wisconsin does appear to have a statute as pertains to pasteurization, and we can't be sure about the source of the blog or whether the words of the judge are being taken out of context. However, as represented, it's likely that the coverage of the statute is being stretched at least by the unfortunate wording used here, as it appears the statute is meant to apply only to a dairy farm, and not milk or cows used for non-commercial and subsistence purposes.

In short, unless there are qualifiers the judge mentioned along the lines I discussed, that the blog did not post, the judge is incorrect, and conflating two separate issues. You do have a right to own a cow and drink raw milk from that cow, limited only by how you keep the cow and whatever animal cruelty laws might be established in your state. SELLING the milk and standards applied to commercial milk products is a different matter.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 10:47 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


The judge ruled as part of the case that the plaintiffs did in deed own a dairy farm.

...and I was speaking about the "General Welfare clause in Section 8, the Powers of Congress.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 10:57 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Cow milk is for... cows.

Sure, it'll fatten up humans just fine, too, but nature made cow milk to feed calves, which grow to several hundred to well over a 1000 lbs.

I prefer almond milk, myself. But how they milk those little guys, remains a mystery.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 10:59 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

The judge ruled as part of the case that the plaintiffs did in deed own a dairy farm.


Yes, but unless the judge has been misquoted, non-commercial use of diary and standards applying to commercial-diary products are generally considered two different things with two different legal standards.

In the law, you must be very careful with your words. Was the judge responding to the dairy farm as a legal entity and it's milk distribution, or the farmer about his personal drinking habits? As represented, "This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one's choice," and "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow," are probably not a correct or valid interpretation of the laws in question.

Quote:

...and I was speaking about the "General Welfare clause in Section 8, the Powers of Congress.


That has to do with the leverage of taxes, not specific catch all general welfare clause. A specific law regarding standards would still have to have been passed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 11:11 AM

DREAMTROVE


Riona,

Because formaldehyde is used in the processing. My sister has the same problem.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 11:20 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Riona,

Because formaldehyde is used in the processing. My sister has the same problem/b]



No formaldehyde is not used in the process of pasteurization, which is merely heating of the Milk to a certain temperature for a certain amount of time and them cooling it.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 11:30 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Yes, but unless the judge has been misquoted, non-commercial use of diary and standards applying to commercial-diary products are generally considered two different things with two different legal standards.

In the law, you must be very careful with your words. Was the judge responding to the dairy farm as a legal entity and it's milk distribution, or the farmer about his personal drinking habits? As represented, "This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one's choice," and "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow," are probably not a correct or valid interpretation of the laws in question.



Reading the Judge's clarification it would seem that the state does not make a distinction between non-commercial and commercial dairy farms.


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:That has to do with the leverage of taxes, not specific catch all general welfare clause. A specific law regarding standards would still have to have been passed.


Taxes and spending, also since South Dakota v. Dole the Federal government has been able to use the withholding of funds to the states to force them to adopt federal standards.

It would seem that a law is in affect in Wisconsin.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 12:01 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

It would seem that a law is in affect in Wisconsin.


Agreed. What is not clear is whether that law also applies to non-commercial use of dairy, and whether the judge is correct in trying to apply it there.

My initial guess is to say probably not, but I could google around and see if I can't find any specific illumination on that front.

This link comes from Oregon, but appears to be a break down of the Federal law in question. There is a list of exemptions.

Perhaps the judge was specifically speaking to the farmer/owner of the dairy farm, and not being specific as to exemptions. But exemptions do exist.

Surprisingly, the exemptions do make an allowance for commercial sale of raw-milk, which I did not expect. But the cow limit in the exemptions is likely intended to protect the subsistence and non-commercial farmer when he consumes his own diary products, and to distinguish standards between commercial and non-commercial use of dairy.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/FSD/program_dairy.shtml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 12:35 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


The question is do the federal exemptions exist in Wisconsin regulations? There is no reason a state would have to include those, as the state regulations can be more stringent then the federal ones.

Also it seems this case may have another twist, as the plaintiff was housing their cow(s) at a local farm which they did not own. That maybe why it was ruled a dairy farm.

All in all it is very interesting. I for one have no problem with people owning a cow and drinking the milk.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 12:39 PM

BYTEMITE


The impression I got is that these are Federal Standards and the exemptions are built in Federal exemptions. That particular link was just to an Oregon gov. website that was breaking down the specific standards and requirements of the federal law for the layperson (read: dairy farmers).

Quote:

I for one have no problem with people owning a cow and drinking the milk.


:)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 12:55 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


As for the exemptions, it is the same way in water regulations. Some of the exemptions in the Federal Safe Drinking Water act do not exist in State of Florida regulations. The feds don't have a problem with the state regulations being more strict simply because it is up to the states to defend them.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 1:31 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Well, as usual I tried to hunt down the complete document. You'd be amazed (or, maybe not) at the things that show up when you read more than carefully chosen, highly abridged snippets. In this case, I couldn't find either entire ruling or the clarification. I'll pass on posting any comment.


Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 1:42 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


The clarification is here.

http://www.thecompletepatient.com/storage/WIorder-clarification9-11.pd
f


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 1:47 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


How'd you find that? I'm usually pretty good at tracking this stuff down, so I'm somewhat chagrined I didn't find what was there to be found.


Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 1:51 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Very, very narrow argument of law.


Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 2:50 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Diseases that pasteurization can prevent include tuberculosis, brucellosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, and Q-fever; it also kills the harmful bacteria Salmonella, Listeria, Yersinia, Campylobacter, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli 157 among others.



Pasteurization is only 15 seconds of heat below the boiling point to prevent curdling, which never kills TB, and 30% of pasteurized milk has TB. It's 250-year-old "technology", back when doctors said germs don't exist and delivered babies after autopsies without washing hands.

Quote:

In the HTST process, milk is forced between metal plates or through pipes heated on the outside by hot water, and is heated to 71.7 °C (161 °F) for 15–20 seconds.

Milk pasteurization has been subject to increasing scrutiny in recent years, due to the discovery of pathogens that are both widespread and heat resistant (able to survive pasteurization in significant numbers).[11] One of these pathogens, Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP), is linked in research by F. Autschbach and colleagues to Crohn's Disease.[12]

Pasteurization destroys some enzymes as well as possibly-beneficial microbes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization



TB Bacteria Found In Pasteurized Milk, Results from tests for nine other disease-causing bacteria have been withheld
http://www.rense.com/politics6/bac.htm


"The ZioNazi eugenics program is proceeding nicely. Now shut up and die goy."
-Trillionaire Rabbi David Rockefeller, owner of the world medical cartel

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 6:37 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Congratulations you have figured out that Pasteurization is not perfect.



I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 6:39 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
How'd you find that? I'm usually pretty good at tracking this stuff down, so I'm somewhat chagrined I didn't find what was there to be found.



There was a link to it in the second blog posted.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 7:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


THANKS! I try to not click on PNs links. Sometimes they are legitimate sites, but sometimes your computer catches nasty stuff.

Oh, that thing he posted about M avis I think it was (TB Bacteria Found In Pasteurized Milk, Results from tests for nine other disease-causing bacteria have been withheld) - was from England. It might be interesting if I had more time to look up if England and the US have different Pasteurization protocols, herd inspection schemes etc. From briefly looking up some sites, it's apparent that Michigan has an aggressive TB testing schedule not just for cows, but for sheep, goats, deer, elk and I forget what else - that animals that test positive are isolated away from the farm until further testing is completed etc. In other words, at least some places in the US don't rely on Pasteurization alone to keep milk safe. Also, from that incident PN linked, apparently TB was found after the UK disbanded their government-run dairy production program, cows were no longer being TB tested, any test results done are not public, etc. On TOP of it all, they changed their Pasteurization protocol time and temperature. Not knowing how their protocol compares to the US it's hard to say what meaning the UK incident has for the US, which after all is what this thread is about.

My summary of what happened legally as best I could piece it together was that the people said b/c of Roe v Wade (!) they have privacy and so have a constitutional right to raise their cows and drink the milk. The judge found that they hadn't made an argument - didn't cite appropriate case law and rulings to draw the links between Roe v Wade and milk; and therefore, he could not find that they had a constitutional right to raw milk. Somehow I think Roe v Wade was not the best argument they could have made.


Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 26, 2011 11:15 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I think the whole matter is asinine.

Okay, when you go to a restaurant, look on the menu, see that little disclaimer about consuming raw or undercooked foods, and how it prettymuch declares that to be your own responsibility ?

Note that you can still order your steak rare, yes ?

Same solution applies here - why an *ISSUE* is being made of it, seems to be more corporate pressure against them as a possible competitor than any actual health risk, and the over-the-top response (seriously, a fucking SWAT team?) all but confirms it, since that's a specific intimidation tactic rather than anything required by the situation.

I've been watching this one, and selling the bastards rope by the handful, but that's all the comment I am willing to offer at this time.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 1:37 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I think the whole matter is asinine.

Okay, when you go to a restaurant, look on the menu, see that little disclaimer about consuming raw or undercooked foods, and how it prettymuch declares that to be your own responsibility ?

Note that you can still order your steak rare, yes ?

Same solution applies here - why an *ISSUE* is being made of it, seems to be more corporate pressure against them as a possible competitor than any actual health risk, and the over-the-top response (seriously, a fucking SWAT team?) all but confirms it, since that's a specific intimidation tactic rather than anything required by the situation.



Or it could be that people consume milk more often and in larger quantities then raw foods, such as sea food in restaurants. Plus you have different diseases, and the fact that many raw food that you get have been refrigerated or even at one point frozen.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 1:44 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Or it could be that people consume milk more often and in larger quantities then raw foods


Hmm. I'm not sure we can conclude that. Raw vegetables can also carry bacteria and disease, and I'm sure raw vegetables get eaten a lot.

Plus, there may be cultural differences or specific cuisines to consider, such as sushi.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 2:05 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


I can see your point, I should have said raw meats.

That being said, I would still argue that people consume more milk then raw veggie, at least raw vaggies that have not been frozen. More so when you are talking about kids.

....and most sushi has been frozen before sale.

http://www.sushilinks.com/sushi-recipes/how-to-buy-fish/index.html

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 3:46 AM

BYTEMITE


That's really more an issue of the sushi having to be shipped inland in America... It's supposed to be served extremely fresh and never frozen, since it's been traditional fare since before the invention of refrigerators. In Japan the high quality places can serve the fish fresh because they're closer to the ports. Japan's a narrow island, most people live within an hour or so of the ocean.

Of course, low quality places in Japan do freeze the fish, but the problem is the longer you store raw meat, even if frozen, the bigger health concern you're looking at.

But, we're talking about in America here I suppose, and not Japan, so I'll concede that.

As for kids, maybe, but with the amount of calcium fortification being added to a lot of foods and the increasing prevalence of soy, almond, or rice based "milk" products, I'm more hesitant to agree than I would have been maybe ten years ago.

And for infants, there's been kind of a resurge of breast milk and formula, and there's been studies done to suggest that non-human milk actually isn't very good for them.

Though all this breastfeeding in public stuff, at some point they cross over from genuine concern for the child into outright exhibitionism. Kind of annoys me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 3:58 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I remember when we had that breast feeding discussion before. I think its fine to breast feed in public, as I said then. I doubt that a huge portion of women who breastfeed their babies do it with the express purpose of showing off their breasts.

I still think if someone wants to sell nonpasturized milk on a local level and they clearly label it as such that's fine with me. Maybe it can't be sold at the regular grocery store, that would be okay with me, as long as they are allowed to sell it somewhere to people who know that's what they're getting.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:44 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
I doubt that a huge portion of women who breastfeed their babies do it with the express purpose of showing off their breasts.


And if they do, so what of it ?
Heaven knows we have a damn distorted view of sexuality due to ludicrous puritanism, in our twisted society where somehow the notion of exposed boobie is considered more horrific than bloody slaughter.

On that note, this.

Thousands run in underwear to protest Utah laws
http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-run-underwear-protest-utah-laws-234748
648.html

Quote:

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Thousands of people stripped to their underwear and ran through Salt Lake City to protest what they called the "uptight" laws of Utah.

Undie Run organizer Nate Porter says the goal of the event Saturday was to organize people frustrated by the conservative nature of the state's politics.

Nudity was prohibited by organizers. Participants donned bras, panties, nightgowns, swimwear or colorful boxer shorts — and some added political messages by expressing support for causes like gay marriage on their chests, backs or legs.

Salt Lake City is the home of the Mormon church, which is a vocal opponent of gay marriage.

Porter estimates 3,000 people participated in the run, which began in downtown Salt Lake City and circled past the state Capitol building about a mile away.


Cause I have a special place in my heart for taking the piss out of the uptight.

That said, again, the whole matter here could be solved by simple disclaimer, and once again the extremity of the response says there's more at work here than public safety - allowing this kind of thing is just one more step to putting us all in nice safe rubber rooms in between our periods of servitude to enrich the elite, and I call shenanigans.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:54 PM

BYTEMITE


They have the right to do it, just like nudists, and I have the right to think they're idiotic, irrational, and raving.

Just hearing one of them talking about how magical and mystical breastfeeding is makes me want to vomit my brain out my ears.

I don't like babies, and I don't like anything that has to DO with babies. It's frikkin' BIOLOGY. Half the population on Earth is capable of lactating, and bearing children. It is not magical or beautiful! It is filled with blood and pain and indigestion, and a tiny creature feeding off your insides with all the pleasing physical aesthetic of a toad - squat, wide mouth, hairless, big eyes.

But more than that I probably wouldn't even care if they didn't make a huge damn fuss about it. To listen to them they put themselves on the same level as frikkin' racial segregation, and seeing their spoiled damn privileged fuzzy minded victimhood just makes me grit my teeth.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 5:15 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Wow Byte, you feel pretty strongly about this.

Frem, I know what you mean. There is this town I visited once in southern OR, little town it was, and the women all had a particular habbit, they'd run around with nothing up top but their bra, not a bikini, just their bra. I'm jealous. I wouldn't want to run around with nothing up top period though because I'd be bouncing and it would be kind of painful to me.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:06 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
They have the right to do it, just like nudists, and I have the right to think they're idiotic, irrational, and raving.

Just hearing one of them talking about how magical and mystical breastfeeding is makes me want to vomit my brain out my ears.

I don't like babies, and I don't like anything that has to DO with babies. It's frikkin' BIOLOGY. Half the population on Earth is capable of lactating, and bearing children. It is not magical or beautiful! It is filled with blood and pain and indigestion, and a tiny creature feeding off your insides with all the pleasing physical aesthetic of a toad - squat, wide mouth, hairless, big eyes.

But more than that I probably wouldn't even care if they didn't make a huge damn fuss about it. To listen to them they put themselves on the same level as frikkin' racial segregation, and seeing their spoiled damn privileged fuzzy minded victimhood just makes me grit my teeth.


*laughing sooo hard now...*

Just for you Byte, JUST for you...
http://www.lackadaisycats.com/exhibit.php?exhibitid=301
My spirit-sister (born in same hospital, on same day, at same hour) Stacy feels much the same way, and every time some family member starts with the when-are-you-having-kids push her husband has to lock up the tools before she goes lookin for a hammer.

This much I'll give you, WHY on EARTH do they presume YOU want to hold it ?
(I make sure to stay out of reach for much this reason)

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:11 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So, to get back to the milk thing ... I'm not sure how it even came up before a judge. But yeah, even tho the judge was being a prick, maybe he just didn't feel like being both their legal counsel AND the judge at the same time. He COULD have said - well, the applicable statutes and exemptions are ... Instead he went with - you want to make this a constitutional Roe v Wade right? Not convinced by your argument. Therefore, I find that under Roe v Wade you have no constitutional right to raw milk. NEXT!

They really needed a better lawyer.


Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:26 PM

BYTEMITE


Yep, except for the throwing, pretty much exactly. The recoiling, mouth open expression of dismay, and extreme awkwardness and quick pawning off of the kid on someone else a soon as I can is exactly the response you're looking at. Also there is the hands wiped on jeans response.

You must understand, you've seen Mormons, even though they're the FLDS kind. But they have a THING about marriage and babies, and they take it to an extreme in their friendly territory.

We're talking about two to five weddings or showers a MONTH. They serve bland food! The games involve only the happy couple or the mother to be and no one else! Conversations are straight out of 1950s domestic depictions and it is impossible to not hear anything eye rolling dumb or mouth dropping backwards. And they don't serve alcohol or soda, and I don't even DRINK alcohol, but believe you me, the mormon idea of a party desperately NEEDS a liberal application of libations!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/INeedAFreakingDrink

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:06 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Oh I know, it's creepy, like stepford-creepy, and they don't even serve coffee and give me dirty looks about it, bloody hypocrites cause that tea they cheat with is much the same...
There ain't so many up here, but the few that are kinda hate my guts despite my assistance on several levels which requires them to invite me and then hope I blow it off - you're right though, it's somewhere between morbidly creepifyin and totally depressing.

Anyhow, back to the topic - Kiki, I think you've an excellent point there, and of it, I wonder if perhaps they might consider throwing down "ineffective assistance of counsel" or whatever they call lawyer-incompetence these days, cause it sure seems like it, that OR he took a dive on purpose, which... come to think of it, he may well have.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:24 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Frem

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.

I was waiting in court once for something - I forget what - and a couple came before the judge for code violations. Now, they were obviously lost at sea about the whole thing, and the judge was nice enough to explain to them what it was about and what their options were, and then after they decided what they were going to do after some back and forth with the judge, to tell them who they needed to see ... it got all worked out in a very humane way. I remember being kind if shocked - a judge can do this??!!!

Now let's take the same couple, and they feel a little intimidated by the whole thing so they get a lawyer to help them through. Except the lawyer is a crappy lawyer and the judge is being an ass about it, and all of the sudden they are FUBAR'd. Now they REALLY need a lawyer to untangle it all.

All in one instance it goes from being solvable to a hot mess.

So while I can see that the judge was perfectly within his rights to do what he did - which was rule on the argument as presented to him - it seems there should have been some extra steps before it got there.


Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL