GOP Senator wants restaurants to opt out of hand washing to reduce regulations

[Compost]

The dumb shit would do away with the regulation requiring food handlers to wash their hands after wiping their asses.

The dumb shit would then create a regulation requiring the establishment post a sign the food handlers don't wash their hands after wiping their asses.

Were you trying to outdo your last remark for inanity sake?

 

[g5000]

oh whatever. people are getting sick from the damn food they are bringing in from other countries.

Wow.

Just...wow.

Even in a topic about handwashing regulations, you reached way down deep and found a way to swipe at immigrant darkies, eh?

Wow.

 

[jillian]

For those who didn't read the article but only the silly OP remarks, here's what the senator actually said, “I said, I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as the post a sign that says ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restrooms.’ The market will take care of that.”

yes, and then promptly go out of business. AND HE IS A SENATOR? Oh wait....he is a REPUBLICAN SENATOR.

That's right. People won't want to eat at restaurants where the employees don't wash their hands after they use the bathroom. Then the restaurant will go out of business. Anybody who says that is talking sense. Yes, even if he is a REPUBLICAN SENATOR.

Don't sweat it, Jim. If you want your food handled with poopy hands you are free to continue doing so at home.

the guy is a moron.

and anyone who says otherwise is equally stupid.

 

[JimH52]

For those who didn't read the article but only the silly OP remarks, here's what the senator actually said, “I said, I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as the post a sign that says ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restrooms.’ The market will take care of that.”

And it's sheer brilliance. Requiring employees to wash hands is simply onerous

I think every Republican owned restaurant in the US should immediately put this sign up:

OUR EMPLOYEES DO NOT WASH THEIR HANDS AFTER USING THE TOILET!
AND WE ARE DAMN PROUD!
Now, enjoy your dinner!​

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The dumb shit would do away with the regulation requiring food handlers to wash their hands after wiping their asses.

The dumb shit would then create a regulation requiring the establishment post a sign the food handlers don't wash their hands after wiping their asses.

I was wondering if anyone else caught that.

 

[jillian]

The dumb shit would do away with the regulation requiring food handlers to wash their hands after wiping their asses.

The dumb shit would then create a regulation requiring the establishment post a sign the food handlers don't wash their hands after wiping their asses.

Were you trying to outdo your last remark for inanity sake?

 

[g5000]

The dumb shit would do away with the regulation requiring food handlers to wash their hands after wiping their asses.

The dumb shit would then create a regulation requiring the establishment post a sign the food handlers don't wash their hands after wiping their asses.

Were you trying to outdo your last remark for inanity sake?

It's what the dipshit said.

 

[JimH52]

Stephanie, you are looning again.

I hope that her Meds come before she gets snowed in....

 

[IsaacNewton]

For those who didn't read the article but only the silly OP remarks, here's what the senator actually said, “I said, I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as the post a sign that says ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restrooms.’ The market will take care of that.”

And did you detect the supreme irony of his statement?

No I missed it, good catch.

He would require a regulation to post a sign saying we are opting out, but he wants to do away with regulations.

 

[g5000]

The Senator really needs to read about Typhoid Mary.

 

[Siete]

oh whatever. people are getting sick from the damn food they are bringing in from other countries. so what the hell does washing hands do to stop anything. good grief everything is major in your lives. this is stupid to go and attack the whole gop party over. sit down

here's your bowl of chili mam ... oh, by the way, that may or may not be chili on the bowl, I just laid a loaf, and wiped before I brought you your order.

Good grief, sit down and eat up.

 

[Mr Natural]

The wage slaves should be taking care of their own toilet needs at home on their own time.

There's no reason why Mr. Employer should be put upon to pay them while their ******* around in the bathroom washing their hands and doing God knows what when they should be out there doing their ******* jobs!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yeah.............sure................let every food place that wants to opt out of handwashing do so.

Nothing like turning ALL places to eat into Chipotle's.

 

[Compost]

For those who didn't read the article but only the silly OP remarks, here's what the senator actually said, “I said, I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as the post a sign that says ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restrooms.’ The market will take care of that.”

And did you detect the supreme irony of his statement?

Irony is too polite. Stupidity.

If a regulation's imposition is minimal and its effect is undeniably a positive good on a market, there's no logical objection to the regulation. And washing hands fits the bill better than anything I can thing of. I'm sure the idiot senator would think catalytic converters should be optional as well.

However, if the effect of a regulation is to prevent some from entering a market, either to buy or sell, and some overwhelming good cannot be shown, there's no rational defense of the regulation.

The post-Reagan deregulators choose not to notice that even Hayek approved of regulation to prevent pollution that would destroy forests. No liberty is absolute.

If what you say is true than isn't it the Starbuck worker who asked the question the one at whom you should be aiming your derision? Of course you didn't actually read the article. You made that clear. Thank you for sharing.

 

[JimH52]

This Senator has proven the Lunacy of many Congressmen. Only the GOP would run someone as nuts as this guy.

 

[g5000]

For those who didn't read the article but only the silly OP remarks, here's what the senator actually said, “I said, I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as the post a sign that says ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restrooms.’ The market will take care of that.”

And did you detect the supreme irony of his statement?

Irony is too polite. Stupidity.

If a regulation's imposition is minimal and its effect is undeniably a positive good on a market, there's no logical objection to the regulation. And washing hands fits the bill better than anything I can thing of. I'm sure the idiot senator would think catalytic converters should be optional as well.

However, if the effect of a regulation is to prevent some from entering a market, either to buy or sell, and some overwhelming good cannot be shown, there's no rational defense of the regulation.

The post-Reagan deregulators choose not to notice that even Hayek approved of regulation to prevent pollution that would destroy forests. No liberty is absolute.

If what you say is true than isn't it the Starbuck worker who asked the question the one at whom you should be aiming your derision? Oh. Wait. I'm sorry. You were on a mindless republicans are bad rant.

First, it wasn't a Starbucks worker that asked the question. It was a person at the table with the Senator. It's funny that someone who entered this topic by jeering at those who had not read the article missed that.

Second, the questioner was not advocating doing away with the hand washing regulation. He was asking if the Senator would. And the Senator said he would, but that he would then require Starbucks to post a sign.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is an old story, by the way.

The funniest part is that the "federal regulations" as they exist today don't actually require that employees wash their hands, just that the employer posts a "Employees must wash hands" sign.

So in effect, he is actually just suggesting replacing one federal sign regulation with another one.

 

[Compost]

For those who didn't read the article but only the silly OP remarks, here's what the senator actually said, “I said, I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as the post a sign that says ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restrooms.’ The market will take care of that.”

yes, and then promptly go out of business. AND HE IS A SENATOR? Oh wait....he is a REPUBLICAN SENATOR.

That's right. People won't want to eat at restaurants where the employees don't wash their hands after they use the bathroom. Then the restaurant will go out of business. Anybody who says that is talking sense. Yes, even if he is a REPUBLICAN SENATOR.

Don't sweat it, Jim. If you want your food handled with poopy hands you are free to continue doing so at home.

the guy is a moron.

and anyone who says otherwise is equally stupid.

You didn't read the article. That doesn't make you a moron necessarily, but it does make you sound like one.

 

[JimH52]

We have now passed into the Twilight Zone!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

GOP senator: Let restaurants ‘opt out’ of handwashing after toilet to ‘reduce regulatory burden’

Only if Trump's Chef will do the same!

Why is that even a federal issue?