Is Obama a Socialist?

[DuncanONeil]

I suggest that an apology is due!
And you were casitgating a member of the board to develop a coherent policy before complaining about a law!
(Section 81.08 of the New York City Health Code)
New York City’s Health Code amendment phases out the
use of artificial trans fat in all food service establishments
required to hold a New York City Health Department
permit, including restaurants, caterers, mobile food-vending
units, and mobile food commissaries:
• Beginning July 1, 2007:
You may not use partially hydrogenated vegetable
oils, shortenings, or margarines for frying, pan-frying
(sautéing), grilling, or as a spread unless you have
product labels or other documents from the
manufacturer showing that these ingredients
contain less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving.
You may continue to use trans fat-containing oils
and shortenings for deep frying cake batter and
yeast dough until the regulation takes full effect
on July 1, 2008.
• Beginning July 1, 2008:
No food containing partially hydrogenated vegetable
oils, shortenings, or margarines with 0.5 grams or more
trans fat per serving may be stored, used, or served
by food service establishments.
• The regulation does not apply to food served in the
manufacturer’s original, sealed packaging, such as a
package of crackers or a bag of potato chips.
How can I tell if a particular product is allowed under the regulation?
Step 1. Look at the package label or ingredients
list to see if “partially hydrogenated,” “shortening,”
or “margarine” are listed. If none of these terms
appear, you may use the product.
If any of these terms are listed, go to Step 2 to
see if the product contains too much trans fat.
Step 2. Check the Nutrition Facts panel for
trans fat content. If the panel says the product has
0 grams of trans fat, or less than 0.5 grams of trans
fat per serving, you may use the product.
If the Nutrition Facts panel says the product
has 0.5 grams or more trans fat, you may not
use the product.
If there is no Nutrition Facts panel on the product,
go to Step 3.
Step 3. If there is no Nutrition Facts panel,
ask your supplier to provide a letter from the
manufacturer listing the product’s ingredients.
If the ingredients list contains the words “partially
hydrogenated,”“shortening,” or “margarine,“ the
letter must also include information on the
amount of trans fat in each serving.
As in Step 2, if the product has 0 grams of trans fat,
or less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, you
may use it.
The letter should be on the manufacturer’s
letterhead and show the manufacturer’s name
and address. Keep the letter at your food service
establishment, available for review by a Health
Department inspector.
Beginning July 1, 2007, you will need to save the label for any oils, shortenings, or margarines used for
frying, pan-frying (sautéing), or grilling, or as a spread, until the product is completely used. Labels may
be kept on the product container, photocopied, or kept separately.
Beginning July 1, 2008, when the regulation takes full effect, you will need to save the label for any
food containing oils, shortenings, or margarines, regardless of how you use the product. For instance, if you
are frying frozen French fries, you should save the label for both the frying oil and the French fries until
both have been completely used.
What should I do with products that contain artificial trans fat if they are still
in my pantry on July 1, 2008?
If a product containing partially hydrogenated oil has 0.5 grams or more trans fat per serving, you will
not be able to store, use, or serve it after July 1, 2008. The regulation gives food service establishments
time to use their remaining supplies and restock.
It does not matter where you buy the products.
Beginning July 1, 2008, all foods and ingredients stored, used, or served in New York City food service
establishments that contain partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, shortenings, or margarines must have
less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving.

You should check your facts before before spouting off. The EPA's authority STOPS at the water's edge, which is where the Coast Guard's authority starts. If you don't believe the Coast Guard has been active in this fucking nightmare, then you just haven't been paying attention.



First, I have yet to see a law REGULATING anybody's fat intake; dietary advice from your government can be treated like dietary advice from your horsey Aunt Mabel who never saw an eclair she didn't like. It can be paid attention to or ignored as you wish. From the majority of kids I've seen lately, I'd be willing to say that far and large, the government's advice is being ignored. So kindly calm down with the "regulate our fat intake" hyperbole.

As to your whine about government requirements regarding offshore oil rigs, while I agree that the Obama administration dropped the ball here on regulating the oil industry, I would first like to point out that the administration has had just over ONE year to correct the fuckups of DECADES of the control of regulatory agencies by the industries they're supposed to regulate. That isn't something Obama CAUSED but something he INHERITED. Give the man a chance.

Second, I find it not just amusing but absolutely hilarious that your opening post whined that you think Obama is a socialist, but here you're whining that you want his administration to impose MORE "socialist" restrictions on private enterprise.

You can't have it both ways. Either Obama's "radical socialist" (formerly centrist - right) agenda regarding private enterprise is right, or it's TOO FAR RIGHT, or it's wrong. It can't be too socialist and let private business get away with too much all at once. They're mutually exclusive.

I suggest you come up with a coherent political philosophy YOURSELF, before arguing further. Right now you sound like an "I don't want to pay taxes but I want the federal government to take care of me anyway" teabagger.

[grinner666]

Completely irrelevant example, as New York City's board of health (hell, NYC's entire government) has about as much similarity to the federal government as a bullfrog has to a Tyrannosaurus. The question under discussion is, after all, whether Obama's sliding us down that scary, evil, lefty socialist slope. What a local government chooses to do, whether you like what it's doing or not, has nothing to do with federal government functions and certainly can't be blamed on Barack Obama.

[DuncanONeil]

IRRELEVANT!?!?!
I quote grinner666; "I have yet to see a law REGULATING anybody's fat intake". I believe that I have shown you such a law and you have admitted that such exists therefore your original contention is wrong. Aside from that regulations are coming out of Washington itself that regulate what our children can eat. New York was easy to find in order to prove the point!

Completely irrelevant example, as New York City's board of health (hell, NYC's entire government) has about as much similarity to the federal government as a bullfrog has to a Tyrannosaurus. The question under discussion is, after all, whether Obama's sliding us down that scary, evil, lefty socialist slope. What a local government chooses to do, whether you like what it's doing or not, has nothing to do with federal government functions and certainly can't be blamed on Barack Obama.

[grinner666]

IRRELEVANT!?!?!
I quote grinner666; "I have yet to see a law REGULATING anybody's fat intake". I believe that I have shown you such a law and you have admitted that such exists therefore your original contention is wrong. Aside from that regulations are coming out of Washington itself that regulate what our children can eat. New York was easy to find in order to prove the point!

My deepest, most heartfelt apologies for not appending the word "federal" to an argument in a thread that had, UNTIL your post, consisted wholly of discussion regarding whether the head of the FEDERAL government was a socialist. I shall now edit my post; hopefully it will meet with your rather-more-strict-than-usual (i.e., trying-desperately-to-save-your-failed-argument) literary standards:

First, I have yet to see a FEDERAL law REGULATING anybody's FEDERAL fat intake; dietary advice from your FEDERAL government can be treated like dietary advice from your horsey FEDERAL Aunt Mabel who never saw a FEDERAL eclair she didn't like. It can be paid attention to or ignored as you wish. From the majority of FEDERAL kids I've seen lately, I'd be willing to say that by and large, the FEDERAL government's FEDERAL advice is being FEDERALLY ignored. So kindly calm down with the FEDERAL "regulate our fat intake" FEDERAL hyperbole.

Thank you.

*sigh*

I never said there were any laws regulating anyone's fat intake. My exact phrase was: "I find it ironic that the government wants to get involved with our daily lives and regulate our fat intake, yet they didn't impose regulations - such as make the $500,000 protective pressure valve gauge - a requirement on offshore rigs."

(Notice the use of the word: WANTS)

What *I* find ironic ... no, hilarious ... is that you're bringing up a proposed bill from the 109th Congress ... which took place from 2005 to 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_U...tates_Congress), in the middle of Dubya's administration, and trying to use that as evidence that somehow Barack Obama is a socialist. Nice bit of misdirection there, it took me all of thirty seconds' research to straighten out.

So in point of fact, the word should be "wantED", unless you have some other piece of proposed legislation, from THIS year, to pull out of your a ... hat. And frankly, blaming legislation PROPOSED before Obama ever took the office of the president, by a Senator who's been in government since 1969, and been an elected official since 1974, on Obama is not only unconvincing, it seems to me more than just a little sleazy.

I will also note that the bill you use as your shining example of Obama's socialist tendencies never even got out of committee, so you can't even honestly say that he ... a freshman senator with basically no influence outside his one vote ... supported it.

As to your second "point," it is not "irony" to complain that Obama is trying to control what we eat (he isn't, and even if he was, in federally-funded schools, the federal government has every right to control what the money it gives to a school is spent on), and then complain that he didn't provide enough control on the oil industry. It's complaint, and illogical complaint at that.

Arguing that Obama is a socialist because his administration (I've said it before and will continue saying it) dropped the ball on this matter is insanity; socialists want government control of the means of production and distribution. On the other hand, arguing that the oil industry needs less controls is equally, and demonstrably, nuts.

Please make your position on this matter more clear, because at this point you are still sounding like an "I want the government to protect me but I don't want anybody to have to pay for it" teabagger.

[DuncanONeil]

Touched a nerve did I. Yes the thread may be about the political leanings of the current Socialist in Chief, but the message was a clear statement about the existence of any law. That statement was demonstrated false!
Perhaps the rest of the below message is more appropriate than could be expected. Perhaps you somehow channeled a future self and saw the actual results of the Obama Legacy, where everyone and everything is the property of the Government. That picture is pretty scary!

My deepest, most heartfelt apologies for not appending the word "federal" to an argument in a thread that had, UNTIL your post, consisted wholly of discussion regarding whether the head of the FEDERAL government was a socialist. I shall now edit my post; hopefully it will meet with your rather-more-strict-than-usual (i.e., trying-desperately-to-save-your-failed-argument) literary standards:

First, I have yet to see a FEDERAL law REGULATING anybody's FEDERAL fat intake; dietary advice from your FEDERAL government can be treated like dietary advice from your horsey FEDERAL Aunt Mabel who never saw a FEDERAL eclair she didn't like. It can be paid attention to or ignored as you wish. From the majority of FEDERAL kids I've seen lately, I'd be willing to say that by and large, the FEDERAL government's FEDERAL advice is being FEDERALLY ignored. So kindly calm down with the FEDERAL "regulate our fat intake" FEDERAL hyperbole.

Thank you.



What *I* find ironic ... no, hilarious ... is that you're bringing up a proposed bill from the 109th Congress ... which took place from 2005 to 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_U...tates_Congress), in the middle of Dubya's administration, and trying to use that as evidence that somehow Barack Obama is a socialist. Nice bit of misdirection there, it took me all of thirty seconds' research to straighten out.

So in point of fact, the word should be "wantED", unless you have some other piece of proposed legislation, from THIS year, to pull out of your a ... hat. And frankly, blaming legislation PROPOSED before Obama ever took the office of the president, by a Senator who's been in government since 1969, and been an elected official since 1974, on Obama is not only unconvincing, it seems to me more than just a little sleazy.

I will also note that the bill you use as your shining example of Obama's socialist tendencies never even got out of committee, so you can't even honestly say that he ... a freshman senator with basically no influence outside his one vote ... supported it.

As to your second "point," it is not "irony" to complain that Obama is trying to control what we eat (he isn't, and even if he was, in federally-funded schools, the federal government has every right to control what the money it gives to a school is spent on), and then complain that he didn't provide enough control on the oil industry. It's complaint, and illogical complaint at that.

Arguing that Obama is a socialist because his administration (I've said it before and will continue saying it) dropped the ball on this matter is insanity; socialists want government control of the means of production and distribution. On the other hand, arguing that the oil industry needs less controls is equally, and demonstrably, nuts.

Please make your position on this matter more clear, because at this point you are still sounding like an "I want the government to protect me but I don't want anybody to have to pay for it" teabagger.

[steelish]

What *I* find ironic ... no, hilarious ... is that you're bringing up a proposed bill from the 109th Congress ... which took place from 2005 to 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_U...tates_Congress), in the middle of Dubya's administration, and trying to use that as evidence that somehow Barack Obama is a socialist. Nice bit of misdirection there, it took me all of thirty seconds' research to straighten out.

So in point of fact, the word should be "wantED", unless you have some other piece of proposed legislation, from THIS year, to pull out of your a ... hat. And frankly, blaming legislation PROPOSED before Obama ever took the office of the president, by a Senator who's been in government since 1969, and been an elected official since 1974, on Obama is not only unconvincing, it seems to me more than just a little sleazy.

I will also note that the bill you use as your shining example of Obama's socialist tendencies never even got out of committee, so you can't even honestly say that he ... a freshman senator with basically no influence outside his one vote ... supported it.

As to your second "point," it is not "irony" to complain that Obama is trying to control what we eat (he isn't, and even if he was, in federally-funded schools, the federal government has every right to control what the money it gives to a school is spent on), and then complain that he didn't provide enough control on the oil industry. It's complaint, and illogical complaint at that.

Arguing that Obama is a socialist because his administration (I've said it before and will continue saying it) dropped the ball on this matter is insanity; socialists want government control of the means of production and distribution. On the other hand, arguing that the oil industry needs less controls is equally, and demonstrably, nuts.

Please make your position on this matter more clear, because at this point you are still sounding like an "I want the government to protect me but I don't want anybody to have to pay for it" teabagger.

Did I mention Obama's administration when replying to that post?

I DIDN'T. Nor did I say that the current administration's "dropped ball" indicates Socialism. FYI, please see my previous post in response to tyrannyoferos above, especially that last statement that begins with "Take note"

As TantricSoul has pointed out previously, sometimes threads ebb and flow and occasionally stray off topic as people respond to specific comments within a post. I'm terribly sorry if you have difficulty following along. I'm also quite apologetic (on your behalf) to others who may find offense with your unnecessary comments within your posts.

[leo9]

(Section 81.08 of the New York City Health Code)
New York City’s Health Code amendment phases out the
use of artificial trans fat in all food service establishments
required to hold a New York City Health Department
permit, including restaurants, caterers, mobile food-vending
units, and mobile food commissaries:

In other words, it's a public health law. Are you suggesting that no previous Administration made health laws regulating the materials restaurants were allowed to use? Or is this only a threat to democracy when done by Democrats?

{Shakes head in amazement}

[DuncanONeil]

While it may be in the section related to "public health" the issue of a license is really only the Government force.
The fact is that the "government" has decided that this category of fat is not good and therefore are going to force people to stop engaging in its consumption.
But the point was that there was a claim that there was not law, only a suggestion. They are now working to do the same with salt. Although they could not figure out how to actually regulate a persons caloric intake they did force chain restaurants to post calorie counts on the menu even though this was already available to those that wanted the info. Hardly anyone objected to the calorie info and it now appears that that was only the beginning. At this rate food may end up being as appealing as the food in the school cafeteria!

By the bye, the claimed attack on democracy is you own understanding. Never even suggested such a thing.

In other words, it's a public health law. Are you suggesting that no previous Administration made health laws regulating the materials restaurants were allowed to use? Or is this only a threat to democracy when done by Democrats?

{Shakes head in amazement}

[leo9]

While it may be in the section related to "public health" the issue of a license is really only the Government force.

I don't think that sentence makes sense, but just in case, could you translate it into English?

The fact is that the "government" has decided that this category of fat is not good and therefore are going to force people to stop engaging in its consumption.

So you weren't troubled by such bagatelles as habeas corpus or trial by jury, but you'll go to the barricades for your right to eat greaseburgers at Mcdonalds?

By the bye, the claimed attack on democracy is you own understanding. Never even suggested such a thing.

My mistake. You and Steelish have stated from the start of this thread that you see a threat to the Republic and the American way. I foolishly assumed that you considered the America you were defending to be a democracy. Now I know you don't, a lot of things make more sense.

[Thorne]

I foolishly assumed that you considered the America you were defending to be a democracy. Now I know you don't, a lot of things make more sense.

But America is not supposed to be a democracy. It's a democratic republic.

[DuncanONeil]

I don't think that sentence makes sense, but just in case, could you translate it into English?

" Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
While it may be in the section related to "public health" the issue of a license is really only the Government force."
The governments are certainly not going to start publishing a category of laws or regulations entitled "Government Control of the Poplulation"! They will put laws into whatever category they think fits. Whether or you can have a license to conduct business is an example of "government force:, do it our way or you can't do anything!

So you weren't troubled by such bagatelles as habeas corpus or trial by jury, but you'll go to the barricades for your right to eat greaseburgers at Mcdonalds?

The above Constitutional references are not "bagatelles"! But what is it you are trying to say in referring to them? That they should be? Or somehow they are being overlooked?

My mistake. You and Steelish have stated from the start of this thread that you see a threat to the Republic and the American way. I foolishly assumed that you considered the America you were defending to be a democracy. Now I know you don't, a lot of things make more sense.

No one I know, or with any education claims the US is a Democracy! The US is a Democratic Republic. As such it has functioned quite well under the rules of establishment. Now we have a cadre of people that are seeking to eliminate the rules of establishment. Seems to me that such an attempt qualifies as a threat!!

[denuseri]

No one I know, or with any education claims the US is a Democracy!

If one reviews the previous posts one can seee where and why I started back in with my preceptions that had only previously been exchanging with steelish on the side bar and why.

Doth Sir think me to not be educated, (since I did figure that I lay in the "do not know" catagory) I had to wonder as I formulated my posts...grins.

So I pointed out that it is not wrong or uneducated to say that the USA could indeed be claimed to be a Democracy, and be proud of it.

Furthermore, back to the main topic:

That of Obama being a Socialist or not a socialist and if so who cares or doesnt care etc...

I believe that in The United States of America, that as with religion and ones freedom to practice it without fear of harm, threat, reprisal or interference in any way outside of one's practice violating those laws that we all hold to be sacred and in conjuction with one's right to freedom of personal speach in like manner; that one's membership in any given political party or other such afiliation, or one's expression of support for any given dogma of any given party should be in like manner protected or covered by one or both of the previous amendments of our Constitution or it should have a seperate Amendment for itself.

[DuncanONeil]

"(O)r one's expression of support for any given dogma of any given party should be in like manner protected or covered by one or both of the previous amendments of our Constitution or it should have a seperate Amendment for itself."

A separate Amendment is not required as you so ably stated such is already covered.

If one reviews the previous posts one can seee where and why I started back in with my preceptions that had only previously been exchanging with steelish on the side bar and why.

Doth Sir think me to not be educated, (since I did figure that I lay in the "do not know" catagory) I had to wonder as I formulated my posts...grins.

So I pointed out that it is not wrong or uneducated to say that the USA could indeed be claimed to be a Democracy, and be proud of it.

Furthermore, back to the main topic:

That of Obama being a Socialist or not a socialist and if so who cares or doesnt care etc...

I believe that in The United States of America, that as with religion and ones freedom to practice it without fear of harm, threat, reprisal or interference in any way outside of one's practice violating those laws that we all hold to be sacred and in conjuction with one's right to freedom of personal speach in like manner; that one's membership in any given political party or other such afiliation, or one's expression of support for any given dogma of any given party should be in like manner protected or covered by one or both of the previous amendments of our Constitution or it should have a seperate Amendment for itself.

[leo9]

" Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
While it may be in the section related to "public health" the issue of a license is really only the Government force."
The governments are certainly not going to start publishing a category of laws or regulations entitled "Government Control of the Poplulation"!

Assuming you don't mean "population control" as it is usually understood, nobody would use that category because it would include everything. One uses classes smaller than the class of all classes, not to deceive, but to be precise.

Whether or you can have a license to conduct business is an example of "government force:, do it our way or you can't do anything!

Well, yes, I'm afraid living under a government does tend to have that effect. It's called "the rule of law." But be of good cheer, there are still places left in this world where there is no rule of law and your only protection is to be faster with a gun than the next man; nobody will stop you moving there and living the noble free life for as long as you last.

The above Constitutional references are not "bagatelles"! But what is it you are trying to say in referring to them?

I'm saying that the people who fear for the Constitution because a President wants to give healthcare to the poor didn't seem worried about a previous incumbent putting citizens in jail without trial and forbidding protest demonstrations. Just, you know, noticing these things.

No one I know, or with any education claims the US is a Democracy!

My mistake. I grew up in the Cold War, when every debate was framed in terms of the US defending and promoting democracy. But Americans often try to impose institutions on other nations that they wouldn't want at home: I just hadn't realised that this was one such.[/quote]
The US is a Democratic Republic. As such it has functioned quite well under the rules of establishment. Now we have a cadre of people that are seeking to eliminate the rules of establishment. Seems to me that such an attempt qualifies as a threat!!

[/QUOTE]
In most European countries it would be called liberation - so much so that even our conservatives have to present themselves to the voters as the foes of the establishment. But I am beginning to understand much better why the political rules I know don't work in your country. You seem to have a lot more in common with the Russians, who are also pining for the days when they lived under an autocracy and knew where they stood.