EPTOn March 15 2016 23:02 oneofthem wrote:
it is strangely entertaining, must be my sadistic side.
it is strangely entertaining, must be my sadistic side.
More like masochistic. This thread has been a disaster for the past several days.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3320
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
More like masochistic. This thread has been a disaster for the past several days. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On March 15 2016 23:00 xDaunt wrote: Didn't we just have 10 pages of the GMO labeling merrygoround in this thread within the past few months? Do we really need to go there again? I'm late to the party mate :D I work in the beer industry, so I find the discussion as I've seen it here lacking the perspective of those who have been compelled to label things in certain ways. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 15 2016 23:03 frazzle wrote: As it stands, it can be regulated until a court decides otherwise. I'm not sure if challenges to the Vermont law have progressed, but you can see in that brief that one of my points (vagueness) is one of the bases for the challenge. But to suggest it is clear that the Court would find 9-0 for 1st amendment is ridiculous. Today the law of the land says it is OK. it's not ridiculous. here's something on it http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/09/16/supreme-court-free-speech-decision-clobbers-gmo-food-labeling-advocates-but-they-dont-know-it/#5fc980c66cf3 | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On March 15 2016 23:03 frazzle wrote: As it stands, it can be regulated until a court decides otherwise. I'm not sure if challenges to the Vermont law have progressed, but you can see in that brief that one of my points (vagueness) is one of the bases for the challenge. But to suggest it is clear that the Court would find 9-0 for 1st amendment is ridiculous. Today the law of the land says it is OK. It also bears worth mentioning that a state GMO labeling law would likely have an easier time passing judicial muster than a federal counterpart, though I don't see how a well argued vagueness or even overbreadth challenge fails. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On March 15 2016 22:55 TheTenthDoc wrote: I am pretty sure the "strong" beer is a case of inadequate certification apparatus and potential misleading of customers-kind of like what happened to "light cigarettes." I'm pretty sure it isn't that. It has more to do with the regulatory agencies involved having a decades old predisposition to not allow breweries to advertise the strength or alcohol content of their products. It is really stupid, but until about a decade ago beers could not list the alcohol content. All this time meanwhile, liquor like whiskey, vodka, etc. could and may even have been required to, but beers couldn't. In my line of work, there was a Scotch Ale that won a gold medal in a contest's "Strong Ale" category, and the TTB wouldn't allow that fact to be mentioned on the label or on a website. Perhaps it is the type of thing that could be challenged in court by an organization with the cash though. On March 15 2016 22:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:The government cannot regulate speech to "whatever degree it wishes to" as a result-the speech has to be misleading or harmful or something else. Well, they just have to show that it is in the public's interest. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4361 Posts
On March 15 2016 22:28 corumjhaelen wrote: It was censored, remade and lasted two years as promised. What's your point ? We all know what happened and why France had to scrap the 75% tax on high earners.The rich fled across the border, French tax revenue dropped. Just a taste of what is to come if Sanders gets in.Canada is hoping Sanders wins. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On March 15 2016 23:06 oneofthem wrote: it's not ridiculous. here's something on it http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/09/16/supreme-court-free-speech-decision-clobbers-gmo-food-labeling-advocates-but-they-dont-know-it/#5fc980c66cf3 I'm not saying that specific regulations won't get overturned. I don't think it is as clear cut as you seem to think it is. If the government has a compelling interest to have the products labeled as GMO, then even under strict scrutiny they can do so as long as they justify to the court the "compelling interest" and then narrowly apply the restrictions in the least restrictive way that is reasonable. Have you read anything besides the Forbes article on the Reed case? I just read up on it at ScotusBLOG and while the case does deal with govt limitations on "corporate" speech (actually a church in this case), the case is significantly different. It deals with why a church couldn't post a "go to our church" sign while a political sign there ("Vote Trump!") would have been OK. To a great degree the case deals with whether a municipality can use category of speech involved (political, vs religious, vs commercial, etc.) in constructing its regulations on signage. It doesn't seem clear to me that the Court's decision there points the way to a negative decision in the Vermont case. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
ErectedZenith
325 Posts
On March 15 2016 23:22 Plansix wrote: So if we tax the highest earners in the US, they will flee to other countries, diminish their influence on politics and future tax policy? That sounds pretty good for the middle class, IMO. I am sure we can find a way to make up for the loss in tax revenue. Middle class will lose jobs due to their fleeing employers. Its economy 101. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On March 15 2016 23:22 Plansix wrote: So if we tax the highest earners in the US, they will flee to other countries, diminish their influence on politics and future tax policy? That sounds pretty good for the middle class, IMO. I am sure we can find a way to make up for the loss in tax revenue. Especially since the top tax rate is tiny, anyway. A junior engineer at GM who earns a great but not exorbitant 120k a year pays the same amount of taxes as Tim Cook or Bill Gates do. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 15 2016 23:41 ErectedZenith wrote: Middle class will lose jobs due to their fleeing employers. Its economy 101. Please do not pretend you ever took economy 101. The U.S. is far from a theoretical Laffer curve peak. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On March 15 2016 23:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: We all know what happened and why France had to scrap the 75% tax on high earners.The rich fled across the border, French tax revenue dropped. Just a taste of what is to come if Sanders gets in.Canada is hoping Sanders wins. A cursory glance puts the 75% tax at 400 millions net benefice during its two year time, but whatever. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On March 15 2016 23:40 oneofthem wrote: there are multiple issues involved with every case and while the reed one has some that are not relevant to gmo labeling the discussion on standard of scrutiny is broad reaching for similar speech cases. ge food does not satisfy the strict standard which in this area requires a material difference in the food category. there is no such difference and it wasnt even the argument by advocates of the regulation because even they know there is nondifference in the food itself Well, that remains to be shown in court. And it is not a given that strict scrutiny will be involved here. As the judge in Vermont noted: As a preliminary matter, Judge Reiss determined that strict scrutiny does not apply, because the mandatory labeling requirement neither compels political speech nor constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination. Judge Reiss disposed of the plaintiffs’ argument that the labeling requirement compels political speech because it is a “politically motivated speech regulation.” Speech does not become political merely because it “emerged from an allegedly GE-hostile and politically-charged legislative environment,” she explained. Judge Reiss likewise rejected the plaintiffs’ viewpoint discrimination argument, concluding it was “clear” that the labeling requirement “mandates disclosure of a fact: the presence or potential presence of GE ingredients.” The mandatory disclosure does not “convey a ‘preferred message’ about that fact,” she noted, and the requirement “applies regardless of a manufacturer’s or retailer’s own view of GE and GE foods.” While Judge Reiss did not cast doubt on the plaintiffs’ assertion that the disclosure requirement might “give[] rise to a negative connotation regarding the safety of GE foods,” she found that GE manufacturers and retailers’ ability to add information reflecting their own opinions “renders it unlikely that a statute reflects impermissible viewpoint discrimination.” The Supreme Court could easily see it the same way. -EDIT- BTW, with my line of arguing here I am not intending to align myself with the paranoia over GMO products. I generally agree the hype is unwarranted and agree that genetic engineering is important to the future of our food supply. I'm just saying, from experience, that the government to date can regulate labeling 'speech' and does so in the alcohol industry today with a great degree of leeway (but those restrictions have been loosening over the last 20 years). | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On March 15 2016 21:15 Acrofales wrote: Absolutely. And if you want to have a mature discussion about GMOs, I guess we can try. But IgnE wasn't addressing any of the real issues (as IgnE never does) and I was just making fun of him and his absurd point. I did address that issue. And lol. I think it would be great to have that DNA sequence available to the public. Open source agriculture. It's pretty tiring though responding to people who either didn't read what I wrote, don't understand what I wrote, or don't care to respond appropriately. At least oneofthem makes arguments that are responsive and relevant. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 15 2016 23:44 DickMcFanny wrote: Especially since the top tax rate is tiny, anyway. A junior engineer at GM who earns a great but not exorbitant 120k a year pays the same amount of taxes as Tim Cook or Bill Gates do. People over value the wealthy as a tax base in general. Really, people just over value the wealthy, we could lose a whole lot of them to tax havens and not notice at all. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On March 15 2016 23:40 oneofthem wrote: there are multiple issues involved with every case and while the reed one has some that are not relevant to gmo labeling the discussion on standard of scrutiny is broad reaching for similar speech cases. ge food does not satisfy the strict standard which in this area requires a material difference in the food category. there is no such difference and it wasnt even the argument by advocates of the regulation because even they know there is nondifference in the food itself Come on, you can't argue that the food is both patentable and nondifferent. | ||
| ||
