If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-erp.) wants better control on your eggs   (thehill.com) divider line 24
    More: Dumbass, Dianne Feinstein, American Veterinary Medical Association, Consumer Federation of America, animal behaviorist, Society of the United States, United Egg Producers, standards  
•       •       •

3513 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 May 2012 at 12:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-05-26 09:54:38 AM
12 votes:
which would ensure egg producers aren't blocked from selling across state lines due to differing state standards.

OMG, Congress addressing an issue related to interstate commerce. In other words, DOING ITS FARKING JOB. I can understand how derpmitter would find that confusing.
2012-05-26 11:57:36 AM
5 votes:
So, regulating chicken eggs, BAD. Regulating a person's eggs (fertilized or otherwise), A-OK.

I guess some people don't want anyone else touching their chickens.
2012-05-26 11:01:02 AM
5 votes:

Dinki: which would ensure egg producers aren't blocked from selling across state lines due to differing state standards.

OMG, Congress addressing an issue related to interstate commerce. In other words, DOING ITS FARKING JOB. I can understand how derpmitter would find that confusing.


No, you don't understand. The Federal government is doing something. Therefore, it's bad.

Doesn't matter that it's Constitutionally permitted, doesn't matter that it's legislation that would clarify standards, doesn't matter that it's fairly proactive, doesn't matter that it will help farms keep doing business, doesn't matter that it's got a long implementation period, doesn't matter that it's got the approval of the egg producers and the Humane Society.

The Federal government is doing something. Therefore, it's bad.
2012-05-26 11:39:25 AM
4 votes:

LordZorch: nd it's a good thing too, because we all know how messed up our eggs have been for all time without the government there to help us.


Uh, we had a salmonella problem with eggs about 18 months ago.

And I will say that stuff like this is EXACTLY what the Commerce Clause is there for.
2012-05-26 12:33:43 PM
2 votes:

LordZorch: Because we all know that the government is going to make sure that our eggs are up to code and perfect. Just as soon as the costs go way, way up to comply with all the stupid red tape and regulations that will be imposed.

And it's a good thing too, because we all know how messed up our eggs have been for all time without the government there to help us.

idiot....


i45.tinypic.com
2012-05-27 10:04:56 AM
1 votes:
2012-05-27 07:24:40 AM
1 votes:
GOP Mantra: Government is bad! Government is useless! Government can't do anything!
Vote me into government office!
2012-05-26 11:32:55 PM
1 votes:

Lunaville: LordZorch: Dinki: which would ensure egg producers aren't blocked from selling across state lines due to differing state standards.

OMG, Congress addressing an issue related to interstate commerce. In other words, DOING ITS FARKING JOB. I can understand how derpmitter would find that confusing.

Because we all know that the government is going to make sure that our eggs are up to code and perfect. Just as soon as the costs go way, way up to comply with all the stupid red tape and regulations that will be imposed.

And it's a good thing too, because we all know how messed up our eggs have been for all time without the government there to help us.

idiot....

Guess how I know that either your wife or your mother buys the household eggs?

Outside of organic eggs, the quality of eggs has been declining for a while now. The shells are thinner and more fragile than they were in the 70s and 80s. This thinning is very noticeable when trying to dye Easter eggs. And studies have shown that eggs are less nutritious now than they were a few decades back.

With kids in the house, I consider organic eggs to be an investment.


A very reasonable investment, too. I get organic, free range eggs for under three dollars a dozen. That's still an incredibly cheap protein. The yolks taste better, too.
2012-05-26 07:18:30 PM
1 votes:
[adds one more thread number to relcec's WTFarky]
2012-05-26 02:34:13 PM
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Lenny_da_Hog: The law proposes minimal standards.

If a state agriculture agency wants to have a higher standard and a label certifying that higher standard, nothing prevents that. You could legally sell interstate eggs, but only a select few could have "In-State Certified Higher Standards" eggs.

If that makes a difference to the consumers, they'll pay to continue regulating farms to their higher certification, and they'll buy the eggs that meet those higher standards.

Or, once again, what is to stop a state from banning GM chicken eggs the way they ban high-alcohol-content beer?


You don't get the idea behind "standards," do you?
2012-05-26 02:29:29 PM
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: relcec: If states could do shiat like this, don't you think they would do it all the time to protect local producers? Illinois can't restrain interstate trade by putting ridiculous regulations in place. it is unconstitutional.

If that were the case, there would be no such thing as individualized laws in each state and there would be no point to this law being proposed by the feds. This is not the case at all. In your example the impedance to interstate commerce was not justified by the slight increase in safety. It was very specifically ruled.


Shaggy_C: relcec: If states could do shiat like this, don't you think they would do it all the time to protect local producers? Illinois can't restrain interstate trade by putting ridiculous regulations in place. it is unconstitutional.

If that were the case, there would be no such thing as individualized laws in each state and there would be no point to this law being proposed by the feds. This is not the case at all. In your example the impedance to interstate commerce was not justified by the slight increase in safety. It was very specifically ruled.


The law proposes minimal standards.

If a state agriculture agency wants to have a higher standard and a label certifying that higher standard, nothing prevents that. You could legally sell interstate eggs, but only a select few could have "In-State Certified Higher Standards" eggs.

If that makes a difference to the consumers, they'll pay to continue regulating farms to their higher certification, and they'll buy the eggs that meet those higher standards.
2012-05-26 02:08:46 PM
1 votes:

Ricardo Klement: You know, so much of this stuff is retarded, that sometimes people don't even bother reading the details before becoming outraged. This is clearly one of those cases. Aside from it being a Democrat proposal, I wonder if even Ron Paul would have a problem with this, and if so, what he feels the federal government's job is here.


It's a Democratic proposal.

Think of it this way, if the Democratic party were instead called the "Jewish party" would you feel comfortable calling it a "Jew proposal" or a "Jewish proposal"?

Of course, there are instances where it would be appropriate to use the word "Jew", but only if you were talking about an individual or group of Jews, and not things that are Jewish.

Just a little mechanism that help you not sound like a buffoon.
2012-05-26 01:59:02 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: jbuist: And I will say that stuff like this is EXACTLY what the Commerce Clause is there for.

Ehh.. it's mostly going to help big producers. Smaller producers probably won't be able to weather the regulatory environment.

Sucks for me because I buy fresh eggs directly from a producer. If they have to start following a federal guideline I imagine the cost of my eggs will jump or she'll be shut down and I'll have to eat bland generic eggs from the store again.


If I'm reading the bill correctly, producers with less than 3000 hens are exempt from the regulations.
2012-05-26 01:01:39 PM
1 votes:

Notabunny: So, by "Dumbass" subby must mean "Reasonable" or "Pragmatic" guaranteed Pol tab greenlight

2012-05-26 12:42:01 PM
1 votes:

Doctor Funkenstein: But if you regulate the chickens like this you hamper the Republican's ability to continuing f*cking them.


Yeah, can't believe we've let it go this far without this:

img849.imageshack.us
2012-05-26 12:41:57 PM
1 votes:
Who actually has a problem with this?

What's wrong with reasonable regulations that help prevent mass outbreaks of disease?
2012-05-26 12:27:38 PM
1 votes:
FTA: "Producers must enlarge cages for egg-laying hens and allow space for the birds to engage in natural behaviors such as nesting and perching."

Under the bill, producers would have as long as 18 years to meet these standards, which also includes a ban on starving chickens as a means of increasing egg production. In addition, it would prohibit excessive levels of ammonia in hen houses and require "humane euthanasia of spent hens.
"

Clearly this is terrible legislation dreamed up by derpy liberal elitists. Ah'unt my 75¢ a dozen eggs by gawd, fark them thar layin' hens!
2012-05-26 12:27:13 PM
1 votes:

SN1987a goes boom: How is this derp-y? This is an issue of interstate commerce and is exactly one of the reasons Congress exists.


Multiple, conflicting state regulations: Good.

A single, standardized federal regulation: Bad

Duh, Farklibs.
2012-05-26 12:25:23 PM
1 votes:

Dinki: which would ensure egg producers aren't blocked from selling across state lines due to differing state standards.

OMG, Congress addressing an issue related to interstate commerce. In other words, DOING ITS FARKING JOB. I can understand how derpmitter would find that confusing.


Done in one, tag must be for subby, welcome to fark/politics on the weekend.
2012-05-26 12:19:57 PM
1 votes:

Dinki: which would ensure egg producers aren't blocked from selling across state lines due to differing state standards.

OMG, Congress addressing an issue related to interstate commerce. In other words, DOING ITS FARKING JOB. I can understand how derpmitter would find that confusing.


B-b-but gubmint bad! This guy told me so!

4.bp.blogspot.com
2012-05-26 12:19:47 PM
1 votes:
How is this derp-y? This is an issue of interstate commerce and is exactly one of the reasons Congress exists.
2012-05-26 12:17:41 PM
1 votes:

ManateeGag: So, regulating chicken eggs, BAD. Regulating a person's eggs (fertilized or otherwise), A-OK.

I guess some people don't want anyone else touching their chickens.


Pretty much covers what I had to say.
2012-05-26 10:41:57 AM
1 votes:

Dinki: which would ensure egg producers aren't blocked from selling across state lines due to differing state standards.

OMG, Congress addressing an issue related to interstate commerce. In other words, DOING ITS FARKING JOB. I can understand how derpmitter would find that confusing.


Came to say exactly this

/Thank you, Mr. Dinki
2012-05-26 10:24:08 AM
1 votes:
You know, so much of this stuff is retarded, that sometimes people don't even bother reading the details before becoming outraged. This is clearly one of those cases. Aside from it being a Democrat proposal, I wonder if even Ron Paul would have a problem with this, and if so, what he feels the federal government's job is here.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report