|
Got this one last night on Facebook. Senate Bill S 510 Food Safety Modernization Act vote imminent: Would outlaw gardening and saving seeds quote:(NaturalNews) Senate Bill 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, has been called "the most dangerous bill in the history of the United States of America." It would grant the U.S. government new authority over the public's right to grow, trade and transport any foods. This would give Big brother the power to regulate the tomato plants in your backyard. It would grant them the power to arrest and imprison people selling cucumbers at farmer's markets. It would criminalize the transporting of organic produce if you don't comply with the authoritarian rules of the federal government. The government is coming for you, with its naked body scanner! They've put wheels on the scanner, and it is trundling towards your farm today!
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 13:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:11 |
|
|
I can't even figure out who wins with this bill not passing. It's an FDA (not DHS) thing that is trying to prevent more salmonella and e. coli outbreaks, like we've had recently. I would say it's Monsanto trying to prevent more regulations, but they're mentioned as the possible evil shadow backers of this bill. Is there a salmonella lobby??
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 13:29
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:People on welfare who are drug abusers should be forced (and I mean it, by force, if necessary) into a program. They shouldn't get a choice. If they steal, beg, or go into prostitution, then they get arrested for those crimes and get forced into a program. I don't think anyone is going to benefit from what is basically punishing these people. It's a tremendous waste of money to seek these people out, test them, persecute them, possibly jail them, and then put them in a program that will not work. Definitely a bigger waste than simply offering unconditional help whenever they reach out for it, no matter how many times a person has failed in the past. And regardless of drug addiction being a disease or not, they're still victims. Maybe they chose, for whatever reason, to do drugs that fateful first time, but once they're hooked you can't really say those people have any more of a choice than a hungry person has the choice not to eat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 14:22
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:I can't even figure out who wins with this bill not passing. It's an FDA (not DHS) thing that is trying to prevent more salmonella and e. coli outbreaks, like we've had recently. Just because they're mentioned doesn't mean that they're not the one supporting the opposition to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 16:41
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Is there a salmonella lobby?? Picturing some bacterial amoebas with suits and briefcases taking senators out to lunch cracks me the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 17:09
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Just because they're mentioned doesn't mean that they're not the one supporting the opposition to it. I dunno. Monsanto is one of the few things in the world I would characterize as "Cartoonishly Evil" but this seems rather Machiavellian. What PR firm decides the best way to rouse popular opposition to something is to tell people that your client is SUPER evil and that this is what they want, as some reverse psychology thing. I can think of two examples of recent similar cases, with two different sources behind them. One, the whole "Obama just passed a law that makes it illegal to fish! We can't go fishing anymore!!" Working at a restaurant at a harbor, god knows I heard that one thrown around for months. That had Republican email chain written all over it. The other example is when the whole Healthcare thing happened, I challenged my aunt to actually read it and find those loving death panels she kept ranting about. She didn't find them, but she did find a passage she claimed meant there would never be any more elections and Obama would be dictator for life. She spread this news to EVERYONE SHE KNEW. I looked up the passage she referred to, and she completely misread it and extrapolated it out to the most dire consequences, just like with this whole "GARDENS ARE ILLEGAL!" thing. So I think either an idiot read the bill and didn't understand it, or the Republicans are still trying to convince people that Democrats are maniacal villains. crime fighting hog posted:Picturing some bacterial amoebas with suits and briefcases taking senators out to lunch cracks me the gently caress up. This was basically my thought, yeah. Producing posters with sickly children smiling. At some point in the meeting, the amoebas divide into two more suited amoebas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Got this one last night on Facebook. I'm totally confused. I just read the full text of the bill and I saw absolutely nothing that would even allude to home growers not being able to keep their own seeds or being able to garden. It seemed like the bill was just for food safety in processing facilities and for children with allergies in schools. Where the hell do people get this poo poo?!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Look I dont think you understand those are my tax dollars. Well ofcourse they are, I mean, if they build a bridge with your tax dollars instead, it'd be your bridge right? (Yes, I know you were being sarcastic)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 18:45
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Well ofcourse they are, I mean, if they build a bridge with your tax dollars instead, it'd be your bridge right? The point is, my tax dollars shouldn't be going to help those people. I'm sure Ragnarok there agrees, boy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
Dameius posted:The point is, my tax dollars shouldn't be going to help those people. I'm sure Ragnarok there agrees, boy. Got to make sure that bridge isn't build in an urban area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Where the hell do people get this poo poo?! Out of their own asses, more or less. They know no one fact checks nowadays so they can claim whatever they want and tack it on something "real". The people who want to believe it won't even try to check if it's true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
What I've always found funny is that that every conspiracy theory or paranoid rant ever involves the Federal Reserve, somehow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:I'm totally confused. I just read the full text of the bill and I saw absolutely nothing that would even allude to home growers not being able to keep their own seeds or being able to garden. It seemed like the bill was just for food safety in processing facilities and for children with allergies in schools. Someone I am inexplicably friends with on facebook routinely posts things from naturalnews.com and as far as I can tell they pretty much just make up stories out of whole cloth on a fairly regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 19:34
|
|
|
Tape Speed posted:Cut bullshitters out of your life I'd love to never have anything to do with the main one in my life, but my grandpa is married to her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 20:03
|
|
|
Angry Avocado posted:Forcing someone in a program sounds great in theory, but in practise it doesn't work. For most drug abusers, the problem isnt their addiction but how they can continue to feed that addiction, and unless they one day realise that they're destroying their lives and they actually seek out help to get better, there's nothing anyone can do to help. People who got out of rehab relapse all the time, and those are people who actually wanted to get better at some point. I live in AZ and the SB 1070 stuff (that "tough on illegal immigration" BS) creates a lot of discussion on my facebook wall. Generally it's good, as in my friends and friends-of-friends all agreeing it's awful and wrong etc, but now and then I'll get the other side showing up. I'll try to dig a few up if anyone's interested but in general the arguments go nowhere. It's really sad when you can get someone into a corner to where they're admitting that they have no problem being required to have ID on them everywhere they go, lest you be arrested for not suppling proof of citizenship at any given moment. And they just proudly stand by that conclusion 
Bhaal fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Nov 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
decarboxylated posted:Someone I am inexplicably friends with on facebook routinely posts things from naturalnews.com and as far as I can tell they pretty much just make up stories out of whole cloth on a fairly regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 00:29
|
|
|
Coitus_Interruptus posted:Drug Addiction is horrific. The idea that we need to add extra consequences to make it sufficiently miserable enough for people to understand they made a mistake or that offering them unconditional assistance somehow absolves them of responsibility is loving insane. When a 17 year old girl sucks her first old greasy cock for 20 dollars, she's paid the price for her decision to try meth and we don't need to add consequences so you can feel that they've been properly punished. Making her pee in a cup so she can have welfare benefits isn't going to help her. Especially because if she's an addict she's just not going to pee in the cup, meaning you're not helping anyone. and also Arglebargle III posted:How, exactly, will this help anything, except in making you feel better? Clearly she feels that a productive life is worse than a life working as a prostitute and using drugs. The most efficient method of handling such a situation is to impose progressively harsher punishments until she is forced to realise that her actions are negatively impacting her own life and the lives of others. For the record, I'm not interested in punishment for its own sake, I'm only interested in it as a useful tool. The most basic and powerful building block in the ethical hierarchy is fear of punishment. The reason these tools are necessary is because these people cannot meet their obligations to society. Consider the maxim of which an ideal society is built upon, "From each according to his need, to each according to his ability." These people are deliberately hamstringing their ability while simultaneously increasing their need. Obviously, this is a severe problem and one which must be eliminated by any means necessary. quote:Except for forcing people into programs doesn't loving work. Theres a reason modern treatment hinges on things like interventions and other methods of helping a person make the decision to fight their addiction themselves. Forcing people into treatment isn't going to help them and the goal of these programs should be to help people. and in the same vein Arglebargle III posted:What happens when people fail? Will you put them through it again hoping for a different outcome from the same inputs? Are you going to jail them? Shoot them? A regiment of progressively harsher corporal and psychological punishments coupled with a programme to reward them for making the right decisions. This will fulfill both the "fear of punishment" stage and the "wish for reward" stage of the ethical hierarchy and supersede their desire for drugs. This will also be indirectly beneficial to society by creating a powerful deterrent effect, since people will do anything to avoid being subjected to that system. Some people may truly be incurable. If that's the case, then a method to deal with those people must be devised. Since their net value to society is negative, they should be removed from society to where they cannot damage it, but in such a way that they can still provide something to it, which makes their existence at least slightly useful. As an example, assuming there's still gold in Alaska, one could build mining camps where these people could mine gold and send it back to society at large without harming others. [QOUTE]Seriously? I must have missed the part where Meth addicts need to be quarantined because it can be transmitted through the air.[/QUOTE] Social problems spread in the wake of drug abusers in the same way that diseases spread in the wake of the infected. quote:The biggest problem isn't that it authoritarian its that it doesn't work. While you're willing to help, you're also working from this twisted position that these people are bad, or that they somehow deserve it, and that any indecency or cruelty we enact on them through our help is perfectly OK because well, gee golly gosh, they chose to use drugs. You keep bringing up their choice as if it bears any relevance to our social responsibility to help them. Its the exact same thing people do to deny anyone welfare services, its dangerously close to a just world fallacy and you're only a step or two away from saying they don't deserve any help It can work, as long as we're not willing to continue to coddle them. You said it yourself, these aren't rational people. As such, only severe measures will work. Furthermore, their choices do affect our social responsibility. Because they have proven themselves incapable of making rational, self-interested decisions, others have to do it for them, unlike people who catch a disease through no fault of their own. Also I'm not being particularly harsh on people just for being on welfare, I would advocate mandatory drug testing for all people, with the same programmes for them as for people on welfare. Obviously, this would only need to be a temporary measure, once people recognise and accept their responsibilities and obligations toward society such controls wouldn't be necessary. Arglebargle III posted:Funny, I'm pretty sure tuberculosis patients are in fact not subject to any criminal sanction in this country. I never said that they are. However, their movements should be restricted and they should be treated so as not to cause an epidemic. Is that so senseless? quote:Here's some food for thought: "authoritarian" describes a political system. There's a reason democratic countries tend not to like "authoritarian" policies. A hint: it has to do with a minority (you) projecting their judgments on others' lives with no regard for their opinion. I know that, that's why I put that point in there. I simply disagree with the characterisation of it as "bad". AngryAvacado posted:Forcing someone in a program sounds great in theory, but in practise it doesn't work. For most drug abusers, the problem isnt their addiction but how they can continue to feed that addiction, and unless they one day realise that they're destroying their lives and they actually seek out help to get better, there's nothing anyone can do to help. People who got out of rehab relapse all the time, and those are people who actually wanted to get better at some point. Offering unconditional help whenever they want it only enables their abuse of drugs; this is not only untenable in a practical sense, but also in an ideological sense. Lenin himself said "He who does not work shall not eat" is a socialist principle. They are too selfish to realise (or if they do realise it, to care) that they are harming society by their actions, so we must impress upon them that they are harming themselves with their actions. Severe punishments will force them to accept the fact that their actions are destroying their lives. quote:And regardless of drug addiction being a disease or not, they're still victims. Maybe they chose, for whatever reason, to do drugs that fateful first time, but once they're hooked you can't really say those people have any more of a choice than a hungry person has the choice not to eat. Firstly, hungry people have made that choice before (hunger strikes). Even if these people are, in fact, incapable of making such a choice, we can make it for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 00:36
|
|
|
Thankfully we don't live in the bizarre, Randian hell-hole you seem to think we do. The way you casually write off and sweep away the lives of human beings is honestly pretty disturbing, so I'll assume you're trolling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 00:45
|
|
|
quote:A regiment of progressively harsher corporal and psychological punishments coupled with a programme to reward them for making the right decisions. This will fulfill both the "fear of punishment" stage and the "wish for reward" stage of the ethical hierarchy and supersede their desire for drugs. This will also be indirectly beneficial to society by creating a powerful deterrent effect, since people will do anything to avoid being subjected to that system. I know you like seeing stuff you typed appear on a screen, but you literally know gently caress all about addiction or the ethical issues surrounding treatment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 00:48
|
|
|
Its literally the "beat the dog until it tucks its tail and slinks away when you approach" type of treatment. But for people. Who are suffering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
decarboxylated posted:Someone I am inexplicably friends with on facebook routinely posts things from naturalnews.com and as far as I can tell they pretty much just make up stories out of whole cloth on a fairly regular basis. My friend who originally posted that "SEEDS! GARDENS!" thing is a "licensed herbalist." I have no idea what that means, except she studied and applied to be a licensed herbalist and was quite excited when she got it. I don't find it hard to believe that naturalnews is some holistic nonsense site.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:Clearly she feels that a productive life is worse than a life working as a prostitute and using drugs. No she doesn't she's a loving drug addict, she isn't in control, she is not a rational actor. Dopilsya posted:The most efficient method of handling such a situation is to impose progressively harsher punishments until she is forced to realise that her actions are negatively impacting her own life and the lives of others. What part of being a drug addict don't you understand? This wont work. Dopilsya posted:For the record, I'm not interested in punishment for its own sake, I'm only interested in it as a useful tool. The most basic and powerful building block in the ethical hierarchy is fear of punishment. Yes punishment works, its totally effective, thats why the increases in sentences for drug offenses since the 1970's have lead to the incredibly low rate of non violent drug offenders currently in federal prisons. OH WAIT THE EXACT OPPOSITE HAPPENED Dopilsya posted:A regiment of progressively harsher corporal and psychological punishments coupled with a programme to reward them for making the right decisions. This will fulfill both the "fear of punishment" stage and the "wish for reward" stage of the ethical hierarchy and supersede their desire for drugs. This will also be indirectly beneficial to society by creating a powerful deterrent effect, since people will do anything to avoid being subjected to that system. I seriously don't even know where you start. Dopilsya posted:Some people may truly be incurable. If that's the case, then a method to deal with those people must be devised. Since their net value to society is negative, they should be removed from society to where they cannot damage it, but in such a way that they can still provide something to it, which makes their existence at least slightly useful. As an example, assuming there's still gold in Alaska, one could build mining camps where these people could mine gold and send it back to society at large without harming others. You've got to be trolling me now right? Dopilsya posted:It can work, as long as we're not willing to continue to coddle them. You said it yourself, these aren't rational people. As such, only severe measures will work. Furthermore, their choices do affect our social responsibility. Because they have proven themselves incapable of making rational, self-interested decisions, others have to do it for them, unlike people who catch a disease through no fault of their own. Also I'm not being particularly harsh on people just for being on welfare, I would advocate mandatory drug testing for all people, with the same programmes for them as for people on welfare. Obviously, this would only need to be a temporary measure, once people recognise and accept their responsibilities and obligations toward society such controls wouldn't be necessary. Hahahah please please please tell me you're joking. Dopilsya posted:Offering unconditional help whenever they want it only enables their abuse of drugs; this is not only untenable in a practical sense, but also in an ideological sense. Lenin himself said "He who does not work shall not eat" is a socialist principle. Unconditional help is the only help thats going to get to these people. Drug addicts aren't going to accept you're ridiculous stipulations, they are just going to refuse your help. If I have an option of not helping them or helping them, I choose to offer unconditional help. Dopilsya posted:They are too selfish to realise (or if they do realise it, to care) that they are harming society by their actions, so we must impress upon them that they are harming themselves with their actions. Severe punishments will force them to accept the fact that their actions are destroying their lives. Strict punishments don't work. If they did, we'd have seen massive decreases in the numbers of drug related arrests to correlate with every increase in mandatory sentencing, 3 strikes gives life, all the poo poo we've passed that has done nothing to stem the amount of drug related crime in this country. You're operating on a fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 00:58
|
|
|
So a month or two ago I had this exchange with a guy I fight fire with: There is no reason why anyone should be jobless. There is always a job at a fast food place, so get at least some kind of job then you can take gov't assistance. If your not willing to work, then no money for you. Quit raping the system bottom feeders! Your intuition about people's ability to get a job is incorrect. Take me as an example, were I to be laid off by the FAA tomorrow the odds that I could actually get a fast food job are very low, I'm "overqualified". This goes doubly for people near the end of their working lives. Check this article out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/frustrated-unemployed-wom_n_644834.html As the article notes, there are 5 unemployed workers for every job opening currently, so matter how motivated you are, you're competing against a huge number of people for a very small number of jobs. ...who the gently caress are you to say I am wrong...am I not allowed to express my thoughts on something without someone saying I am wrong...well I say your wrong...so gently caress offHe subsequently defriended me. Today one of the lieutenants posted this as his status: "For the individuals complaining about the new screening process for airline safety. Are you kidding me? Do you remember 9/11 or the pile of attempted attacks since? Some of our freedoms and rights were forfeited after 9/11 for over-all safety. If you don’t like it, drive your car but for me, I’d rather have an X-ray picture taken of everyone on the plane with me than die. Grow up and suck it up" Any recommendations on how to respond to this without starting another dramafest, or is it better to leave well enough alone?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 01:43
|
|
|
Something about how one who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither yadda yadda yadda
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 01:53
|
|
|
I'd say respond with "if <insert country here> did this you'd cite that as them not giving a poo poo about personal freedom like america does"
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
Or cite how low your odds are of actually dying from a terrorist attack, or even a plane crash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 02:17
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:Or cite how low your odds are of actually dying from a terrorist attack, or even a plane crash. Are they more or less than dying of radiation exposure from repeated x-rays or contracting a virus from a hands-on inspection by a TSA official?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 02:37
|
|
|
I meant the odds of a terrorist attack happening to you, or being involved in a plane crash. Besides, everyone knows x-rays just give you superpowers. 
Blarghalt fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Nov 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:You said it yourself, these aren't rational people. As such, only severe measures will work. Your entire philosophy boils down to this non sequitor. quote:...who the gently caress are you to say I am wrong...am I not allowed to express my thoughts on something without someone saying I am wrong...well I say your wrong...so gently caress off This is the worst loving attitude. Either prepare for a long drawn-out attempt to explain the difference between an opinion and an argument, or give up. Every time I hear "freedom of speech" or some variant thereof being trotted out as a reason why the speaker should never have to consider the insulting idea that he might have an incorrect opinion I want to strangle him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 04:28
|
|
|
Okay, apply for welfare, then get drug tested, receive welfare. Drug tests come out positive, and you're assigned to mandatory narcotics classes and counseling, while still receiving welfare. Once the classes are done you're good for a year when you'll be tested again. Tests are done every couple of months upon a failure and you're given a three strikes and you're out rule, and have to complete a round of narcotics classes and counseling before you can be put back on welfare. I don't think this is a bad compromise, as my biggest problem with mandatory drug tests is the solution people who advocate for it suggest is just kicking offenders to the curb. Of course...who will pay for all of this? That's why I think the compromise would work, get some education out there, get a some drug addicts off their addiction, and make the people who are bitching about drug addicts on welfare put their money where their mouth is and pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 04:48
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:Authoritarian bullshit I get what she's doing, guys--she's either roleplaying as Hitler for a lark or thinks she's the endboss in the shittiest JRPG ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 05:02
|
|
|
Grem posted:Okay, apply for welfare, then get drug tested, receive welfare. Drug tests come out positive, and you're assigned to mandatory narcotics classes and counseling, while still receiving welfare. Once the classes are done you're good for a year when you'll be tested again. Tests are done every couple of months upon a failure and you're given a three strikes and you're out rule, and have to complete a round of narcotics classes and counseling before you can be put back on welfare. Why do we need to compromise? We should offer help to people who need it. These stipulations and conditions do nothing but push people away from getting help. We'd be spending money on tests, and denying help to people who need it just to appease some "MY TAX DOLLARS" idiocy. I'm not interested in that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 05:13
|
|
|
Coitus_Interruptus posted:Why do we need to compromise? We should offer help to people who need it. These stipulations and conditions do nothing but push people away from getting help. We'd be spending money on tests, and denying help to people who need it just to appease some "MY TAX DOLLARS" idiocy. I'm not interested in that. I understand your position, but I truly believe some addicts won't get help unless there is real incentive to be helped. I understand denying welfare to people is never good, never ideal, and not in the spirit of America, but if that denial is put a long, long way off, then I can see a way to use the venom of "drug testing for welfare leeches!" as a way to get drug addicts help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 05:46
|
|
|
Grem posted:I understand your position, but I truly believe some addicts won't get help unless there is real incentive to be helped. Why? What supports this belief you truly hold? A study on behavioral patterns with regards to drug addiction? Personal experience? Your gut?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 08:42
|
|
|
Personal experience and a semester of study of reading case studies of meth addicts. I know it's not air tight or anything, but I think there's probably a middle ground to be reached somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 09:36
|
|
|
Grem posted:I understand your position, but I truly believe some addicts won't get help unless there is real incentive to be helped. I understand denying welfare to people is never good, never ideal, and not in the spirit of America, but if that denial is put a long, long way off, then I can see a way to use the venom of "drug testing for welfare leeches!" as a way to get drug addicts help. And really, offering programs that are going to punish or force people will only drive them away (on top of not working for above mentioned reason). If they know the door is always open they won't be as scared of punishment or judgment or having missed their opportunities once they're ready to start walking the road to recovery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 10:51
|
|
|
This may shock you but most addicts don't like being addicts. That poo poo is hell on your body and psyche and many would give the world to be free of their addiction. But breaking an addiction is one of the hardest things a human must do, and a lot of the stress that drug addicts go through exacerbate the issue. They fear the cops, they fear paying rent, many who lost their job worry about how theyre going to live. And when that kind of stress hits you the urge to do drugs is even more powerful. What addicts need is a safe, no catch environment to get clean. Where they can learn how to deal with the issues in a healthy way where they won't be judged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 11:19
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:This may shock you but most addicts don't like being addicts. That poo poo is hell on your body and psyche and many would give the world to be free of their addiction. But breaking an addiction is one of the hardest things a human must do, and a lot of the stress that drug addicts go through exacerbate the issue. They fear the cops, they fear paying rent, many who lost their job worry about how theyre going to live. And when that kind of stress hits you the urge to do drugs is even more powerful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 11:32
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:My friend who originally posted that "SEEDS! GARDENS!" thing is a "licensed herbalist." I have no idea what that means, except she studied and applied to be a licensed herbalist and was quite excited when she got it. I don't find it hard to believe that naturalnews is some holistic nonsense site. My wife is an officer of the National Herb Society and thinks this is a load of crap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:11 |
|
|
JohnClark posted:Today one of the lieutenants posted this as his status: "For the individuals complaining about the new screening process for airline safety. Are you kidding me? Do you remember 9/11 or the pile of attempted attacks since? Some of our freedoms and rights were forfeited after 9/11 for over-all safety. If you don’t like it, drive your car but for me, I’d rather have an X-ray picture taken of everyone on the plane with me than die. Grow up and suck it up" How about you grow up and not get into political arguments on Facebook with your co-workers, particularly when they didn't start it with you. Don't respond. You can work with people and not argue with them about politics, even if you disagree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 14:49
|
|
