San Fran Major Ban Bottled Water

[Edward]

I rest my case - eddie is a member of the Dems best and brightest

Thank you for letting us all know that you rest your case. I rest my case that you are a fucking tryant, dictator and an evil, and arrogant bastard. Your posts are proof enough for me to know that you meet this definition. You fuckers have been the exact same way since we fought you in the American Revolution, and when we told you not to draft a Constitution you traitors did it anyways, when we rejected it as a people in Rhode Island you showed your true stripes by deciding to ratify it in a special convention WHERE THE MEBMERS OF WHAT YOU CALL THE LIBERALS BEST AND BRIGHTEST WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO SIT DOWN, AND WHO WERE BARRED FROM ENTERING THEIR OBJECTIONS ON THE JOURNALS OF THE RATIFICATION CONVENTIONS, AND WHO WERE THREATEND BY CONSERVATIVES WHO SUPPORTED THE RATIFICATION. MANY LIBERALS STATED THAT THEY FEARED FOR THEIR LIVES FROM THE TYRANTS WHO SUPPORTED THE CONSTITUTION AND THEIR WERE EVEN RUMORS GOING AROUND THAT THEY HAD KILLED PEOPLE WHO OPENLY OPPOSED THE CONSTITUTION. BUT EVEN WHEN YOU SIT THAT ASIDE, THE WORST THING THEY DID WAS DECIDE THAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE HAD WE DONE SO WE WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE SUIT OF THE PEOPLE OF RHODE ISLAND AND REJECTED IT AS NOTHING MORE THAN A DUPLICATION OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

 

[90K]

While growing in the South I remember when the democrats were conservative not all but many in the south, but not the case anymore. I see from the above post the Edward is not a conservative Democrat.

 

[Edward]

While growing in the South I remember when the democrats were conservative not all but many in the south, but not the case anymore. I see from the above post the Edward is not a conservative Democrat.

Actually, you have no idea what you are talking about. I am as conservative as any Democrat can possibly be on the majority of issues. What my posts reflects is the conservative liberalism of Thomas Jefferson with enough profanity and insults thrown in to make people think about things for once instead of choosing to live in their own little damn world. What we are talking about is representative democracy as opposed to our system of government which is neither. This is something we need to realize, and had only a few of the ideas of Thomas Jefferson been implemented we would be a much better country as a result of it. The whole idea that our system of government is a good one is flawed since a) it is not democratic and b) it isn't representative.

There is a system of government where that is possible but that requires us to step outside of our box and to think in the broader sense. How can our system of government be more representative? I have suggested that people actually read what Thomas Jefferson has said on this issue. I have even quoted him since it is apparent that people don't like to read him in the entirety because if they did they would see that he is as liberal as they come while be as conservative as they come. The issue isn't really about being a liberal or a conservative in the modern sense but about the form of government you support (i.e., conservative and therefore oppressive or liberal an therefore based on self governance). That is "do you support self government where all people have a voice in their government and are represented" or do you "support a system of government that denies millions of people a voice in their government and denies them representation unless they happen to be represented by the person who won an election." This isn't an indictment of voting or of democracy instead it is an indictment of how we vote and how we choose our representatives. Jefferson, recognizing this saw the role of a small group of people (i.e., 100) who live in the same community getting together and deciding their own affairs, and then chosing from among themselves someone to represent them in the county, and from then they would select someone to represent them in the State and the federal governments. This does not exist in our present system of government.

 

[90K]

Thank you for at least explaining yourself. I've ran into a few democrats who were extremely liberal. What does that mean to me? It means that anything goes and by damn the government can't call you down or have rules or guildlines. This also means we should be dependant on the government of how, what and why. And I disagree with some of those ideas.
What I will say is this because I'm conservative that shouldn't mark me as a RSR groupie and if it does shame on all those who put me into that catagory. He does spout off but then again many fall into his trap. I'm willing to listen to you, but seeing you have some serious neg rep I have to wonder why that is.
Please carry on.

 

[Superlative]

First SF banned light bulbs, then microwave popcorn, then bottled water. What is next? Employees driving SUV's to work?

They went to the more "green friendly' bulbs

That cost much more and do not put out any more light then the old bulbs

Ill give you one thing, you are consistant, at being inconsistant.


They do not put out any more light?

Do you understand how a light bulb works?

The old bulbs used energy and displaced 80 - 90% of that energy as heat.

Wasting energy.

You think because the are more expensive they should be brighter?

What are you worth a Rupee?

Compared to incandescent lamps of the same luminous flux, Compact flourescent lamps have a longer rated life and use less energy.
A CFL can save over US$30 in electricity costs over the lamp’s lifetime compared to an incandescent lamp and save 2000 times their own weight in greenhouse gases.
The initial purchase price of a CFL is higher than an incandescent lamp of the same output, although this cost may be quickly recouped in energy savings assuming average bulb use.

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

 

[90K]

This does not exist in our present system of government.

Edward, maybe it is because we've gotten too big for our pants, so to speak? I agree we've gotten way off path from our original ideas. I' say after WWII our nation started turning into the wrong direction. We've become to self absorbed to remember anyone but ourselves. You know after the Carter rea Ron Reagan allowed us to recover and to experience many things that we'd not been able to before and look at our society now. We are becoming so smart and educated that we've forgotten what real work is and we are becoming an outsoursed country. While those are good things when reflecting back to me making 25 bucks a month busting tables 7 days a week in 1979 at age 12. I learned a shit load about physical labor and mental labor as well in latter life!

 

[red states rule]

This is shocking

If AIDS lectures, and transgender restrooms can be paid for with by local tax dollars, why would libs have a problem with the purchase of water?

 

[red states rule]

The Rise of Eco-Chic: 'Plastic Grocery Bags are Out.'
Posted by Joe Steigerwald on June 26, 2007 - 17:29.
Dateline: San Francisco. A city which HumanEvents.com ranked as the "most liberal city in America" is taking another shot at business and consumer rights and another step towards socialism with it's most recent ban. This week’s victim? The plastic shopping bag.

Jane Meredith Adams, a contributing editor to Parenting Magazine penned this June 25 special to the Chicago Tribune in which she ignores the impact of the law’s demands on businesses and consumers but instead highlights the fashionable nature of "eco-chic grocery totes."

The story exposes those behind the movement:

These green fashionistas hope to lure the style-conscious into a nationwide anti-plastic-bag frenzy egged on by, of all forces, the fashion bible Vogue magazine.

"Today, let us go out and harness the power of fashion to change the way the nation shops," contributing editor Sarah Mower wrote in last month's edition.

"One stylish act of rebellion in supermarkets, delis, drugstores and designer emporiums and at market stalls is all it takes: Say no to plastic bags."

Vogue, home of clothing and accessories that scarcely a suburban soccer mom can afford, seems awfully concerned about the way America looks when they're shopping for groceries. Could it be that they're just shilling for their featured $900 Valextra medium shopping bags?

According to Adams' Tribune article, "plastic grocery bags are out."

[And to think, the other day I dragged 6 plastic bags full of groceries, the mile between the grocery store and my house. God, I hope the fashion police didn't spot me. But I just didn't have the 5400 dollars that it would cost to tote home my groceries in Vogue approved style.]

The Tribune feature gives just one paragraph to the markets that fought the ban, saying "the 50 grocery stores that would be most affected had argued that the ban was not reasonable because plastic bags made of corn byproducts are a relatively new, expensive and untested product. Some said they might offer only paper bags at checkout."

Instead the story gives voice to the seemingly endless proponents of the ban - ordinary San Franciscans just like me and you. People like "art student Ying Hsiao [who] wore a handsome messenger bag slung across her back. Or Philip Watson who "carried a half-gallon of soy milk, yogurt, a hunk of kale, and oranges and apples on his back in a sturdy backpack."

Nowhere is any normal, "unfashionable" shopper, those who actually don't want to pay for the extra costs or extra hassle, given any voice. Although at the end of the article it does mention how Kelly Cook, co-owner of fashion blog Bagsnob.com confessed that "I had my Anya bag when I went to the market, and it was so cute that I have to admit, when the guy was bagging my chicken, I said, you'd better not."

http://newsbusters.org/node/13752

 

[Edward]

Thank you for at least explaining yourself. I've ran into a few democrats who were extremely liberal. What does that mean to me? It means that anything goes and by damn the government can't call you down or have rules or guildlines. This also means we should be dependant on the government of how, what and why. And I disagree with some of those ideas.

The government does have a right to set guidelines if it is a government "of the people" and not just "of those who voted for the person who voted for the guideline." This requires more than just being able to vote for someone to serve in a legislative body because the Constitution was never agreed to by the people and the people never gave up their right to REPRESENTATION in the form of themselves or a person of their choice. Your position of that the government has the right to call people down and have rules and guidelines make sense if those affected by those guidelines either had a direct vote in that guideline (whether for or against) or someone they chose had a direct vote (either yes or no) in that guideline. Or more simply speaking, even if they didn't vote for them the person still has to answer to the mother of their son's best friend. Take that and extend this, and you have them answering to the mother of the best friend of the sister of their son's best friend. This man or woman would still have to conduct themselves as a neighbor would because they will still have to live with those around them (i.e., the representative isn't going to ignore or insult the mother of his son's best friend because his son is going to tell him to shut up and listen because he wouldn't want his best friend to be sad).

This is what Thomas Jefferson met when he said, "But how collect [the people's] voice? This is the real difficulty. If invited by private authority, [to] county or district meetings, these divisions are so large that few will attend; and their voice will be imperfectly, or falsely, pronounced. Here, then, would be one of the advantages of the ward divisions I have proposed. The mayor of every ward, on a question like the present, would call his ward together, take the simple yea or nay of its members, convey these to the country court, who would hand on those of all its wards to the proper general authority; and the voice of the whole people would be thus fairly, fully, and peaceably expressed, discussed, and decided by the common reason of the society." This does not occure in our system of government, and the people who vote think they have the right to a REPRESENTATIVE while denying others a REPRESENTATIVE. Simply put, our elections are really elections about who will be represented and who will not or better put who will "be allowed to vote on the laws and who will not be allowed to vote on the laws." Thos who were not allowed to vote or who did not have a representative of their choice to vote on the guideline would have a right to object.

Jefferson also said, "These will be pure and elementary republics, the sum of which taken together composes the State, and will make of the whole a true democracy as to the business of the wards, which is that of nearest and daily concern. The affairs of the larger sections, of counties, of States, and of the Union, not admitting personal transactions by the people, will be delegated to agents elected by themselves; and representation will thus be substituted where personal action becomes impracticable. Yet even over these representative organs, should they become corrupt and perverted, the division into wards constituting the people, in their wards, a regularly organized power, enables them by that organization to crush, regularly and peaceably, the usurpations of their unfaithful agents, and rescues them from the dreadful necessity of doing it insurrectionally. In this way we shall be as republican as a large society can be, and secure the continuance of purity in our government by the salutary, peaceable, and regular control of the people."

The size of what Jefferson referred to as wards represents the true genius of what he proposed. That is that, every person would be able to participate in person on most matters of local concern and that they would be able to then choose a representative from among themselves to conduct their business. The size of the ward would require that this person know every person that he represents personally and in the words of Jefferson this {enables them by that organization to crush, regularly and peaceably, the ursurpations of their unfaithful agents, and rescues them from the dreadful necessity of doing it insurrectionally. It is true that everyone will not vote the same way, but like Jefferson noted the fundamental unit of what he called a ward would protect the peple and in his own words, "Divide the counties into wards of such size as that every citizen can attend, when called on, and act in person. Ascribe to them the government of their wards in all things relating to themselves exclusively. A justice chosen by themselves, in each a constable, a military company, a patrol, a school, the care of their own poor, their own portion of the public roads, the choice of one or more jurors to serve in some court, and the delivery within their own wards of their own votes for all elective officers of higher sphere, will relieve the county administration of nearly all its business, will have it better done, and by making every citizen an acting member of the government, and in the offices nearest and most interesting to him, will attach him by his strongest feelings to the independence of his country and its republican Constitution."

Yet, even more in interesting Jefferson did not consider the Constitution to be sacred and speaking of it said, ""Some men look upon constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years experience in government is worth a century of book reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead." He noted many of the weaknesses of the Constitution while he lived and those of us who notice the same and other weaknesses today should have the courage to point them out. The Constitution is not the "ark of the covenant" nor were those who came before us wiser than we are. There is one thing we should remember and that is that there is a form of government where every person has an equal voice (even if the outcome is not always equal) and that form is not the one we now have which is based on an inequality of the voice of the people. If 10 people vote between two people, and 6 voted for X, and 5 for Y our system of government grants X and the 6 who voted for him the right to go to a legislature or other body to vote while Y and those who voted for them are not allowed to vote. Now they were equal up to a point but now they are no longer equal in our system. This isn't a bad thing if all 10 people know X and X is their neighbor but it is a problem when the 5 including Y do not know X personally and he isn't forced to return to their next public meeting to debate and to discuss with them and to live in the same community as them. It is when this happens that those that Y represents do not have to recognize the right of X and those who agree with him to set guidelines especially when those they, their family, and their neighbors who agree with them didn't even get to vote on the guideline.

What I will say is this because I'm conservative that shouldn't mark me as a RSR groupie and if it does shame on all those who put me into that catagory. He does spout off but then again many fall into his trap. I'm willing to listen to you, but seeing you have some serious neg rep I have to wonder why that is.

Ask RSR who gives me negative rep points almost every couple of posts. If I added up all my neg rep points the majority would be from him and several others who also find it a means of communication (i.e., the comments of you are a fucking jackass, you are retarded, etc) See, I have the balls to post everything I say so everyone can read it. It goes back to the idea that people have the right to know where you stand and you have a right to know where they stand.

 

[Edward]

Edward, maybe it is because we've gotten too big for our pants, so to speak? I agree we've gotten way off path from our original ideas.

The problem is that the original ideas were simply wrong and those who pointed this out then were right to do so. The principles on which this country is founded are not "representation" or "democracy" instead it is a form of government that is based on neither. The lack of representation and democracy in the Constitution was noted by many people including people like Patrick Henry who strongly opposed the Constitution and warned that it was intended to create on great "consolidated empire." We need to get past the idea that the Constitution is a good framework from whcih to work and to improve and realize that it is not because those who met to draft it did so because they did not like liberty, democracy or representative government in its true sense. This is why the met in secret and why they did not allow the people to vote and it is why the Constitution was DEFEATED WHEN IT WAS VOTED ON BY THE ACTUAL PEOPLE OF A STATE.

I' say after WWII our nation started turning into the wrong direction. We've become to self absorbed to remember anyone but ourselves.

We started turning in the wrong direction when a group of traitors met in secret in Philadelphia to find a way to foist upon the American people the British system of government with all the trappings of a King, and Parliment including a House of Lords and Commons. It started in the wrong direction when they sought to intimidate those who opposed it, and refused to even allow them to include the reasons for their opposition on the journals of the ratifying conventions. It started turning in the wrong direction when they decided that the vote of the people of Rhode Island rejecting the Constitution was irrelevent and went ahead and ratified it while intimidating those who attended the convention who opposed the ratification. It turned in the wrong direction when Alexander Hamilton and a few others, in 1786, decided to call for a Constitutional Convention. It was at this secret meeting that they called yet another secret meeting.

You know after the Carter rea Ron Reagan allowed us to recover and to experience many things that we'd not been able to before and look at our society now. We are becoming so smart and educated that we've forgotten what real work is and we are becoming an outsoursed country.

This has nothing to do with outsourcing and everything to do with the lack of a good form of government. Outsourcing doesn't pose any real problem to a free society but it threatens those that are not based on freedom instead being based on a Constitution written by traitors and thugs. Even though they were explicitly instructed not to create a new Constitution by the legitimate government of the united States they did so anyways and worst they ratified that Constitution without the consent of the people who they did not want to have a vote on it just like they didn't want the people to hear them debating issues like "should we elect the President for life" and "is the British form of government really the best..."

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I think its a great idea to ban bottled water, next they'll ban marriage...
For straight people.

 

[red states rule]

I think its a great idea to ban bottled water, next they'll ban marriage...
For straight people.

I thought they already did

 

[actsnoblemartin]

no, they just said, were dumb christians and jews, who should not care that our country is being stolen by political correctness.

I thought they already did

 

[red states rule]

no, they just said, were dumb christians and jews, who should not care that our country is being stolen by political correctness.

makes as much sense as when libs whine corporate profits are to high but government spending is too low and the people are undertaxed