How the new food safety bill might affect you

[EnglishLady]

Tue Nov 30, 4:45 pm ET

How the new food safety bill might affect you​

By Brett Michael Dykes

Today -- a year and half after it was passed by the House of Representatives --the Senate passed the Food Safety and Modernization Act (SB 510) by a 73-25 margin. The bill still has to be brought into line with the House's version before President Obama can sign it into law, but its basic provisions have already won praise from safe-food advocates as "the most important food-safety legislation in a generation."

The bill would produce a major shift of regulatory power, granting the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sweeping new powers to oversee farming and track and recall food products -- while also giving the agency the authority to conduct more safety inspections on farms, slaughterhouses, processing plants, etc.

So what does the legislation mean to the average American consumer? Here's a rundown of the direct effects it may have on all of us:

Slightly higher food costs: Critics of the bill, both on the left and the right, have argued that food producers will pass on the higher costs of stricter regulation to consumers, and there's a chance that could happen. However, the bill does exempt farms making less than $500,000 per year -- and supporters of the bill contend that the FDA's enhanced oversight will likely save food makers the higher costs associated with removing contaminated food from the marketplace after the fact.

Selling and sharing from your small garden: Opponents have also suggested that the bill would basically outlaw the sale and distribution of fruits and vegetables grown in backyard gardens. This is not the case. As SB 510 is currently worded, small growers who sell their goods at food co-ops, farmer's markets, roadside stands, etc., wouldn't have to register with the FDA -- though they would still have to comply with whatever state and local food laws are in effect in their area.

Enhanced public health: According to Democratic Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, who co-sponsored the bill, 76 million Americans are stricken with some sort of preventable food-borne illness each year, resulting in more than 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. Advocates of the new bill say that eliminating these outbreaks would save lives -- as well as millions in health-care costs -- each year.

Peace of mind: In the wake of recent recalls of eggs, spinach, pistachios, peanut butter and milk, many Americans are increasingly worried about serious health risks from large-scale corporate agriculture. Of all the world's industrialized nations, the United States has been among the most resistant to making changes to its food safety laws. Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, one of the bill's co-sponsors, recently argued that the bill "couldn't be more urgent or absurdly overdue," adding, "It is shocking to think that the last comprehensive overhaul of America's food-safety system was in 1938 -- more than seven decades ago."

A functional Congress: For the first time in recent memory, the bill fostered a strong bipartisan effort between Republicans and Democrats to do something about a problem that touches just about every American. According to New York Times reporters Gardiner Harris and William Neuman, some of the Senate staffers from both parties involved in the negotiations had never even met previous to working on SB 510.

"The group bonded over snacks: specifically, Starburst candies from a staff member of Senator Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, and jelly beans from a staff member of Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat," Harris and Neuman write. "And in the midst of negotiations, the negotiators -- nearly all women -- took a field trip to a nearby food market so that a Republican staff member could teach the Democrats how to buy high-quality steaks."

So safer food makes for happier, healthy bodies -- and greater bipartisanship. Perhaps the next Slurpee Summit in Washington should feature wheatgrass smoothies.

 

[greg334]

I think the FDA on the Food part has outlived its usefulness. Maybe we need to examine how much money we would save by shifting the regulations back to the states where they belong.

 

[witness23]

I posted Beck's words and allegations about what the food bill meant to him. Below are the FACTS about the bill in red. You see.......some in here and others I speak to outside of the Soapbox that listen to Beck, Limbaugh, FoxNews, Drudge Report, etc, etc, like to regurgitate the talking points of said entertainers and news outlets above. If some of you do not think that most in the Soapbox are fans of Beck, Limbaugh, FoxNews then you are completely naive. If you do not think that most here in the Soapbox do not listen to these people, then you are naive. Again, I am only trying to inform people that only like to get their information from the sources named above. If you do not agree with the explanations of the bill below, feel free to dispute them with logic and references.

Food Safety Modernization Act "will mean higher taxes for you."

During the November 29 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck claimed that the Food Safety Modernization Act is "going to mean higher taxes for you as well. Congressional Budget Office estimates between $1.4 billion and up, between 2011 and 2015." Beck said the bill represented a George Soros-backed effort to "control your food" and "control you." [Glenn Beck, 11/29/10]

FACT: CBO said the bill would "increase spending subject to appropriation" -- not taxes.

In its cost estimate of the Food Safety Modernization Act, the CBO wrote, "CBO estimates that implementing the bill with the manager's amendment would increase spending subject to appropriation, on net, by about $1.4 billion over the 2011-2015 period, assuming annual appropriation action consistent with the bill." [Congressional Budget Office, 8/12/10]

FACT: CBO said the bill would authorize collection of fees from food manufacturers -- not "higher taxes for you." In its cost estimate, CBO reported:

S. 510 would amend and modify the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to authorize the FDA to collect fees to help defray some of the FDA's costs of performing food safety activities. The bill would create new fee programs including: a facility reinspection and recall fee program for mandatory recalls, an importer fee program for voluntary qualified entities, and a fee program to support accreditation of third-party auditors.

The legislation also would authorize the FDA to collect fees for food (including animal feed) export certificates under the current export certification program. Fees are currently collected for drugs and devices that are issued export certifications.

Fees authorized by the bill would be collected and made available for obligation only to the extent and in the amounts provided in advance in appropriation acts. As a result, those collections would be credited as an offset to discretionary spending.[Congressional Budget Office, 8/12/10]

The cost to "you at the grocery story" is "expected to be hundreds of millions of dollars every year."

BECK: Cost to the private sector -- you know, you at the grocery store? Now, they haven't calculated that yet, but it is expected to be hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

FACT: Michigan State University professor says bill "isn't likely to make a huge dent" in food prices.
Beck: "Is there a big problem" with food safety "that I don't know of?" As Media Matters documented, Craig Harris of the Food Safety Policy Center at Michigan State University reportedly said that the bill is unlikely to raise consumers' food costs:

Although costs of food production may rise as a result of the bill, the amount isn't likely to make a huge dent in most large food companies' profits, Harris said, so the added costs shouldn't trickle down to the consumers. For small companies and local farmers, the bill includes exemptions and special accommodations, recognizing that some companies may not be able to keep up with the costs of adopting new safety practices.

BECK:Congress is working hard to make sure that the food that you eat is completely safe. Now, you might be thinking to yourself, "Glenn, I think my food is already safe." But that's just how stupid you are. They know better in Washington.

Apparently, our food is very unsafe. That's why tonight, the Senate is scheduled to start voting on S510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. It is fanta-- it's gonna be so modern, what they're doing. May I ask you, who on the planet has a safer food supply than we do while feeding 300 million people? Is it China? Is it India? Is it -- oh, is it Great Britain? Ooh, Sweden? Oh, no.

Is there a big problem that I don't know of? I mean, I know that, you know, we could always make things better here. There was a problem with spinach a couple of years ago, and then guacamole or avocados, or something. I think that was quickly resolved -- minimal to no interruption of our normal food supply.

[...]

BECK: We could always improve, but there will be never be a perfect system with zero problems, will there?

FACT: GAO declared federal oversight of food safety a "high-risk" problem. From a 2007 Government Accountability Office report that was part of its series on "high-risk problems":

Each year, about 76 million people contract a food-borne illness in the United States; about 325,000 require hospitalization; and about 5,000 die, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, agriculture, as the largest industry and employer in the United States, generates more than $1 trillion in economic activity annually, or about 13 percent of the gross domestic product. The value of U.S. agricultural exports exceeded $68 billion in fiscal year 2006. An introduction of a highly infectious foreign animal disease, such as avian influenza or foot-and-mouth disease, would cause severe economic disruption, including substantial losses from halted exports. Similarly, food contamination, such as the recent E. coli outbreaks, can have a detrimental impact on local economies. For example, industry representatives estimate losses from the recent California spinach E. coli outbreak to range from $37 million to $74 million.

A challenge for the 21st century is how several federal agencies can integrate the myriad food safety programs and strategically manage their portfolios to promote the safety and integrity of the nation's food supply. In numerous previous reports, we have described the fragmented federal food safety system in which 15 agencies collectively administer at least 30 laws related to food safety. The two primary agencies are the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for virtually all other foods. Among other agencies with responsibilities related to food safety, the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Department of Commerce conducts voluntary, fee-for-service inspections of seafood safety and quality; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the use of pesticides and maximum allowable residue levels on food commodities and animal feed; and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for coordinating agencies' food security activities.

The food safety system is further complicated by the subtle differences in food products that dictate which agency regulates a product as well as the frequency with which inspections occur. For example, how a packaged ham-and-cheese sandwich is regulated depends on how the sandwich is presented. USDA inspects manufacturers of packaged open-face meat or poultry sandwiches (e.g., those with one slice of bread), but FDA inspects manufacturers of packaged closed-face meat or poultry sandwiches (e.g., those with two slices of bread). Although there are no differences in the risks posed by these products, USDA inspects wholesale manufacturers of open-face sandwiches sold in interstate commerce daily, while FDA inspects closed-face sandwiches an average of once every 5 years.

This federal regulatory system for food safety evolved piecemeal, typically in response to particular health threats or economic crises. During the past 30 years, we have detailed problems with the fragmented federal food safety system and reported that the system has caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources. [Government Accountability Office, January 2007]

 

[Freightdawg]

What a total obsession you have with Glen Beck! If you don't like the man, why not turn him off? Oh well, to each his own!

 

[greg334]

Obsession?

Fetish?

Infatuation?

 

[Freightdawg]

Obsession?

Fetish?

Infatuation?

Yeah, sounds like all of the above....and then some!

 

[Turtle]

Obsession?

Fetish?

Infatuation?

A Man-Crush Bromance

 

[witness23]

I posted Beck's words and allegations about what the food bill meant to him. Below are the FACTS about the bill in red. You see.......some in here and others I speak to outside of the Soapbox that listen to Beck, Limbaugh, FoxNews, Drudge Report, etc, etc, like to regurgitate the talking points of said entertainers and news outlets above. If some of you do not think that most in the Soapbox are fans of Beck, Limbaugh, FoxNews then you are completely naive. If you do not think that most here in the Soapbox do not listen to these people, then you are naive. Again, I am only trying to inform people that only like to get their information from the sources named above. If you do not agree with the explanations of the bill below, feel free to dispute them with logic and references.

Food Safety Modernization Act "will mean higher taxes for you."


Quote:
During the November 29 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck claimed that the Food Safety Modernization Act is "going to mean higher taxes for you as well. Congressional Budget Office estimates between $1.4 billion and up, between 2011 and 2015." Beck said the bill represented a George Soros-backed effort to "control your food" and "control you." [Glenn Beck, 11/29/10]

FACT: CBO said the bill would "increase spending subject to appropriation" -- not taxes.
In its cost estimate of the Food Safety Modernization Act, the CBO wrote, "CBO estimates that implementing the bill with the manager's amendment would increase spending subject to appropriation, on net, by about $1.4 billion over the 2011-2015 period, assuming annual appropriation action consistent with the bill." [Congressional Budget Office, 8/12/10]

FACT: CBO said the bill would authorize collection of fees from food manufacturers -- not "higher taxes for you." In its cost estimate, CBO reported:

Quote:
S. 510 would amend and modify the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to authorize the FDA to collect fees to help defray some of the FDA's costs of performing food safety activities. The bill would create new fee programs including: a facility reinspection and recall fee program for mandatory recalls, an importer fee program for voluntary qualified entities, and a fee program to support accreditation of third-party auditors.

The legislation also would authorize the FDA to collect fees for food (including animal feed) export certificates under the current export certification program. Fees are currently collected for drugs and devices that are issued export certifications.

Fees authorized by the bill would be collected and made available for obligation only to the extent and in the amounts provided in advance in appropriation acts. As a result, those collections would be credited as an offset to discretionary spending.[Congressional Budget Office, 8/12/10]

The cost to "you at the grocery story" is "expected to be hundreds of millions of dollars every year."


Quote:
BECK: Cost to the private sector -- you know, you at the grocery store? Now, they haven't calculated that yet, but it is expected to be hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

FACT: Michigan State University professor says bill "isn't likely to make a huge dent" in food prices.

Beck: "Is there a big problem" with food safety "that I don't know of?" As Media Matters documented, Craig Harris of the Food Safety Policy Center at Michigan State University reportedly said that the bill is unlikely to raise consumers' food costs:


Quote:
Although costs of food production may rise as a result of the bill, the amount isn't likely to make a huge dent in most large food companies' profits, Harris said, so the added costs shouldn't trickle down to the consumers. For small companies and local farmers, the bill includes exemptions and special accommodations, recognizing that some companies may not be able to keep up with the costs of adopting new safety practices.

Quote:
BECK:Congress is working hard to make sure that the food that you eat is completely safe. Now, you might be thinking to yourself, "Glenn, I think my food is already safe." But that's just how stupid you are. They know better in Washington.

Apparently, our food is very unsafe. That's why tonight, the Senate is scheduled to start voting on S510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. It is fanta-- it's gonna be so modern, what they're doing. May I ask you, who on the planet has a safer food supply than we do while feeding 300 million people? Is it China? Is it India? Is it -- oh, is it Great Britain? Ooh, Sweden? Oh, no.

Is there a big problem that I don't know of? I mean, I know that, you know, we could always make things better here. There was a problem with spinach a couple of years ago, and then guacamole or avocados, or something. I think that was quickly resolved -- minimal to no interruption of our normal food supply.

[...]

BECK: We could always improve, but there will be never be a perfect system with zero problems, will there?

FACT: GAO declared federal oversight of food safety a "high-risk" problem. From a 2007 Government Accountability Office report that was part of its series on "high-risk problems":

Each year, about 76 million people contract a food-borne illness in the United States; about 325,000 require hospitalization; and about 5,000 die, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, agriculture, as the largest industry and employer in the United States, generates more than $1 trillion in economic activity annually, or about 13 percent of the gross domestic product. The value of U.S. agricultural exports exceeded $68 billion in fiscal year 2006. An introduction of a highly infectious foreign animal disease, such as avian influenza or foot-and-mouth disease, would cause severe economic disruption, including substantial losses from halted exports. Similarly, food contamination, such as the recent E. coli outbreaks, can have a detrimental impact on local economies. For example, industry representatives estimate losses from the recent California spinach E. coli outbreak to range from $37 million to $74 million.

A challenge for the 21st century is how several federal agencies can integrate the myriad food safety programs and strategically manage their portfolios to promote the safety and integrity of the nation's food supply. In numerous previous reports, we have described the fragmented federal food safety system in which 15 agencies collectively administer at least 30 laws related to food safety. The two primary agencies are the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for virtually all other foods. Among other agencies with responsibilities related to food safety, the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Department of Commerce conducts voluntary, fee-for-service inspections of seafood safety and quality; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the use of pesticides and maximum allowable residue levels on food commodities and animal feed; and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for coordinating agencies' food security activities.

The food safety system is further complicated by the subtle differences in food products that dictate which agency regulates a product as well as the frequency with which inspections occur. For example, how a packaged ham-and-cheese sandwich is regulated depends on how the sandwich is presented. USDA inspects manufacturers of packaged open-face meat or poultry sandwiches (e.g., those with one slice of bread), but FDA inspects manufacturers of packaged closed-face meat or poultry sandwiches (e.g., those with two slices of bread). Although there are no differences in the risks posed by these products, USDA inspects wholesale manufacturers of open-face sandwiches sold in interstate commerce daily, while FDA inspects closed-face sandwiches an average of once every 5 years.

This federal regulatory system for food safety evolved piecemeal, typically in response to particular health threats or economic crises. During the past 30 years, we have detailed problems with the fragmented federal food safety system and reported that the system has caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources. [Government Accountability Office, January 2007]

 

[witness23]

What a total obsession you have with Glen Beck!!

My obsession is with those that continually spread mis-information. Beck just so happens to be the one doing most of it right now. Also, it blows my mind on how many people listen to this guy and believes the "chicken crap" he says.

If you don't like the man, why not turn him off? Oh well, to each his own!

It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the man. I like to hear what he has to say so when I come on here or talk to other conservitives, I like to see how much they regurgitate what they've heard Beck say. He is a very good entertainer, and if you want to get inside of a Right Wing Extremists head, then he is the perfect specimen.

It is truly sad that people actually listen and believe what this charlatan says. Maybe you are one of them. Oh well, to each his own.

 

[witness23]

A Man-Crush Bromance

Originally posted by Turtle

It's a little surprising to me (maybe disheartening is a better word) to see such a blatant example of dragging something from outside the current thread, into the current thread, for the sole purpose of a personal attack. Clearly, my long-running educational campaign to get people to pay more attention to what was posted, rather than to who posted it, is a failed one.

Any comment about the thread that was posted? What do you think of the Food Safety Bill? Do you think it is a bill that is needed? Is it an over reach of Govt.? Do you think we need more or less food safety? Do you think the States should be repsponsible for the safety of our food?

What are your thoughts on the subject Turtle?

 

[witness23]

Added thought: I guess it is just my "obsession" with the truth and having the integrity to tell the truth that fuels my so-called "obsession" with Beck and others that claim to do so.

 

[Turtle]

As has been mentioned previously, and as is also blatantly obvious to even the casual reader, the Soapbox has become, for you, nothing more than one large extended thread about Beck, Fox, commentators you disagree with, et al. My commenting that it appears that you have a man-crush bromance regarding Beck is hardly dragging something from outside the current thread, as you did that yourself when you introduced the ramblings of Beck. The use of my quote above regarding a blatant example of this does not apply. If anything, it's a blatant attempt yourself to bring something from outside the thread to use as an attack on me. Don't whine about having an obsession with those that continually spread mis-information, and then promptly spread it yourself by re-posting Becks words here. You ask for my thoughts on the subject, but you hijacked the subject in the third post, taking it from the FDA bill to Beck and company.

My thoughts on the bill are that whatever it takes to ensure food safety is generally going to be worth it. When you hand someone food, or cook for someone, you have an obligation to ensure what you are feeding someone is safe to eat. The cost to ensure that may very well be hundreds of thousands of dollars each year at the grocery store. But that's OK, because we have hundreds of thousands of people here who buy groceries every year.


"Added thought: I guess it is just my "obsession" with the truth and having the integrity to tell the truth that fuels my so-called "obsession" with Beck and others that claim to do so."

That's a load of crap. You're obsession is only with one side of the truth, not the actual truth.

 

[witness23]

As has been mentioned previously, and as is also blatantly obvious to even the casual reader, the Soapbox has become, for you, nothing more than one large extended thread about Beck, Fox, commentators you disagree with, et al.

Well, if you are not a Beck fan, a fan of conservative talk radio, a fan of FoxNews, and believe everything they you hear on the T.V., radio and what they read on the internet, then I guess you wouldn't understand. That is a compliment by the way. As you know as well as I do, there are many here in the Soapbox that do believe these things I just mentioned and have no problem relaying the lies they hear to others. It's not that I disagree with everything they say, I disagree with them when it is easily found out not to be true.

My commenting that it appears that you have a man-crush bromance regarding Beck is hardly dragging something from outside the current thread, as you did that yourself when you introduced the ramblings of Beck..

Commenting, as you would call it, that I have a man-crush or bromance, on Mr. Beck is just plain idiocy. It was just a shameless attempt of "piling on" of a member here in the Soapbox. Especially when you consider the definitions of those words:

man crush - Respect, admiration and idolization of another man. Non-sexual. Celebrities, athletes and rock stars are often the object of the man crush.

You can not have a man crush on a friend of yours. That is simply a strong friendship.

Two possible conditions for determining if you have a man crush are:

1. Badly wanting to be that man.
2. If your man crush approached your significant other and began hitting on her, you would excuse yourself and let him have her, at least temporarily.
I have a man crush on Sidney Crosby. I would likely sell my soul to be him and if he wanted to nail my girlfriend, I'd compliment him on his awesomeness and excuse myself.

Bromance - -noun
1. A non-sexual relationship between two men that are unusually close.

-verb -mans-ing
1. The act of wooing a fellow male friend for the purpose of becoming closer.
2. Going to unusual lengths in an attempt to become closer with another male friend.

As you can see, neither of those definitions comes remotely close to how I feel about Glenn Beck or any male. You seem to be up on "pop-culture" Turtle, which is dissapointing that you would even think that my posts would be catergorized as such. Again, an attempt to "pile-on" on a member isn't very flattering. I understand though, you are just trying to fit in and be one of the "gang".

Don't whine about having an obsession with those that continually spread mis-information

No whinning going on here Turtle, just the facts and if you or others can dispute those facts with actual facts, I would be more than happy to read them.

then promptly spread it yourself by re-posting Becks words here. You ask for my thoughts on the subject, but you hijacked the subject in the third post, taking it from the FDA bill to Beck and company.

I hijacked nothing. I merely posted what many in here would've eventually posted or thought. I just did there work for them. Those talking points Beck brought up(not all but some) have been repeated by Limbaugh, Hannity, O'reilly, Savage and I'm sure all over the internet. And I am sure that most reading the Soapbox agreed with Beck's points.

My thoughts on the bill are that whatever it takes to ensure food safety is generally going to be worth it. When you hand someone food, or cook for someone, you have an obligation to ensure what you are feeding someone is safe to eat. The cost to ensure that may very well be hundreds of thousands of dollars each year at the grocery store. But that's OK, because we have hundreds of thousands of people here who buy groceries every year.

Exactly. Because you are rational person. You are not hellbent on making the Government and particulary this administration and President look bad. You are not looking for a conspiracy around every corner.

That's a load of crap. You're obsession is only with one side of the truth, not the actual truth.

You know what Turtle, you're a coward. You tell others not to make it personal but do so yourself. One side of the truth, not the actual truth? Who's truth Turtle, yours? You get to decide?

You hide behind this internet and say things like, "That's a load of crap" behind a keyboard and a monitor. That must make you feel like a big man huh? You coward.

 

[Turtle]

Commenting, as you would call it, that I have a man-crush or bromance, on Mr. Beck is just plain idiocy.

Yes it is. Doesn't make it not true, tho.

As you can see, neither of those definitions comes remotely close to how I feel about Glenn Beck or any male.

Oh, OK, perhaps I'm wrong, and it is sexual for you.

You seem to be up on "pop-culture" Turtle, which is dissapointing that you would even think that my posts would be catergorized as such. Again, an attempt to "pile-on" on a member isn't very flattering. I understand though, you are just trying to fit in and be one of the "gang".

Fitting in is something I rarely try to do. Regardless, if you don't want me to categorize your posts as bromance drivel, then quit posting the words of Beck. The people who cares what he says can watch or listen to him, or go to their Web site themselves. No one else gives a rat's aѕѕ about him.

No whinning going on here Turtle, just the facts and if you or others can dispute those facts with actual facts, I would be more than happy to read them.

Facts? Facts? What the Hеll facts are you talking about? The fact that Beck said this or that? Like I said, who gives a rat's aѕѕ? I can think for myself. Most others can, too.

I hijacked nothing.

Of course you did.You took one subject, and instead of discussing the subject at hand, made it about what Beck has to say about it the subject.

I merely posted what many in here would've eventually posted or thought. I just did there work for them.

Again, that's a load of crap. The fine folks of EO don't need you to do their work for them. By your own repeated actions you have demonstrated beyond all doubt that you are obsessed with Beck, et al.

You know what Turtle, you're a coward. You tell others not to make it personal but do so yourself. One side of the truth, not the actual truth? Who's truth Turtle, yours? You get to decide?

Truth is truth, no one gets to decide. Your truth is clouded by either your hatred of, or blind love for, Beck and those like him. As for making it personal, if you put yourself out there personally, you don't then have the right to complain when people address it. Stick to the issues and personalities never come into play, unless, of course, you make yourself part of the issue, which is exactly what you do whenever you post Beck's stuff. That's a history in the Soapbox you have forged for yourself. If you don't like it, quit posting Beck's stuff, or change screen names again and come back anew.

You hide behind this internet and say things like, "That's a load of crap" behind a keyboard and a monitor. That must make you feel like a big man huh? You coward.

Hiding behind a keyboard and monitor while calling me a coward is a cowardly act. I have never, nor will I ever, type anything that I wouldn't say to someone's face. If you and I were sitting across the table in a restaurant and you said something that was a load of crap, I'd look you squarely in the eye and tell you it's a load of crap. I'll then explain why I think it's a load of crap, and you can chose to believe it or not, but don't for a minute think I'd refrain from being honest and speaking my mind.

 

[skyraider]

will they take away my Jiff Peanutbutter, say it aint so Joe, say it aint so.View attachment 2186

 

[witness23]

Yes it is. Doesn't make it not true, tho.

Oh, OK, perhaps I'm wrong, and it is sexual for you.

You really want to go down that road? Really?

if you don't want me to categorize your posts as bromance drivel, then quit posting the words of Beck.

Seriously, is this Turtle? You sound like a juvenile. You know what, its weird, when there is a discusion of current events you sound pretty knowledgable but when you have to speak off the cuff like now, you do not sound as intelligent. Strange.

The people who cares what he says can watch or listen to him, or go to their Web site themselves. No one else gives a rat's aѕѕ about him.

Try a little experiment Turtle. Listen to a Beck radio broadcast then listen to Limbaugh, then watch O'reilly, then watch Fox and Friends(if you can stomach it), then go to the Drudge Report, are you getting the picture yet? Then take the subject matter of those shows and tell us how many of the same talking points they share and the same opinions they share and the same allegations they share and the same stuff they just make up out of thin air and the same LIES they repeat.

You still with me?

Then, come here to the Soapbox and see how those same things are repeated, almost verbatim. It is quite amusing actually.

Facts? Facts? What the Hеll facts are you talking about? The fact that Beck said this or that? Like I said, who gives a rat's aѕѕ? I can think for myself. Most others can, too..

Particularly in this thread you will see there was very little activity and you know what I apologize for that. I should've just waited for the "regulars" to post the things Beck, Limbaugh, The Drudge Report put out, then came in with the FACTS. You know what? I couldn't wait and just wanted to get it out there, especially since the original post was a rational, common sense approach at looking at this bill. I didn't want that tainted and came in to soon with my comments. So when it comes to the FACTS that I posted below, they were not meant for you, they were meant for those that believe what Beck says. The FACTS are below what this bill is IN CASE you had heard otherwise, which you had not, so you should have not chimed in.

Truth is truth, no one gets to decide.

Care to expound on that piece of philosophy? Can't wait to hear this......

As for making it personal, if you put yourself out there personally, you don't then have the right to complain when people address it..

Just remember that when you espouse about your, "long-running educational campaign to get people to pay more attention to what was posted, rather than to who posted it." you self-centered **** you.

or change screen names again and come back anew.

You are accusing me of changing screen names? I'm curious, what screen name did I have before this one?

Hiding behind a keyboard and monitor while calling me a coward is a cowardly act. I have never, nor will I ever, type anything that I wouldn't say to someone's face.

Easy to say over your keyboard sitting in your vehicle, God only know's where, over the internet. It is a hollow statement.

If you and I were sitting across the table in a restaurant and you said something that was a load of crap, I'd look you squarely in the eye and tell you it's a load of crap..

Again, easy to say. Until that day comes, don't even type it, you shouldn't even think it, because it doesn't matter, we are not sitting in restaurant across from eachother, you are saying things here on the internet that I guarantee that you would not say to my face if we were sitting across from one another anywhere.

That would include the following:

A Man-Crush Bromance
That's a load of crap.
Oh, OK, perhaps I'm wrong, and it is sexual for you.

I'll then explain why I think it's a load of crap, and you can chose to believe it or not, but don't for a minute think I'd refrain from being honest and speaking my mind.

If you were to disrepect me by saying I'm full of crap, there would be no need to explain yourself, because I would not be there for you to explain anything. You may bully others here in the Soapbox Turtle but not me. And I GUARANTEE you that it would not happen face to face.

 

[Turtle]

All you have to do is talk to someone who's met me and they'll tell you the same thing, that I'm honest and up front, I don't mince words, and I say what I think. So you can blowhard all you want about what you can guarantee that I will or won't do, but on that note you are, indeed, full of crap. See, up to this point, I've never said you were full of crap, I only noted that some of what you have said is a load of crap. There's a difference. But if you think for one second you can guarantee what I will or will not do, then you are absolutely full of crap.

"Just remember that when you espouse about your, "long-running educational campaign to get people to pay more attention to what was posted, rather than to who posted it." you self-centered **** you."

There's nothing self-centered about that at all. It's a simple statement of fact that I have often extolled the virtues of responding to what was posted, rather than to who posted it. Unfortunately, you have blurred those lines within the scope of the Soapbox, since the vast majority of your posts are mostly variations on a theme, and it's impossible for most readers not to develop the type of familiarity where both what you post and who you are become one in the same.

"Seriously, is this Turtle? You sound like a juvenile. You know what, its weird, when there is a discusion of current events you sound pretty knowledgable but when you have to speak off the cuff like now, you do not sound as intelligent. Strange."

That's just an awesome deflection, where you come after me personally, because you can't handle the truth. (that's your cue to say something else about me personally)

I made a very simple comment, in response to questions posed by Greg, and my comment stands on it's own. And it's even more valid at this point in the thread than when I initially made it. Your actions within these forums indicate, without question, some kind of obsession with Beck. Trying to discredit me for commenting on it only serves to reinforce my statement. You want to continually post Beck's words, fine, have at it, but I have the right to call you a load-of-crap simpleton if you do.


On a final note...
"You really want to go down that road? Really?"

Sure, why not? It's either a bromance, or I am mistaken and it's sexual. It's clearly one or the other, otherwise you wouldn't be posting so much of Beck's crap here. So let's go down that road.

 

[witness23]

Well, I guess I have to spell it out for Turtle and some others here in the Soapbox about my so called "Bromance" I have with Beck.

I would assume that any dolt could figure out what I post would be the exact opposite of what some here have so fondly accused me of having with Beck. I guess not. I didn't take offense to the comment when posted by Greg or when Freightdog agreed with Greg. See, with the comment Greg made, I can either defend or agree or explain what my purpose is about posting things about Beck. But with your comment Turtle, I can do neither of those things, because the statement isn't correct by definition. Again, just your unsuccesful attempt at "piling on" for the sake of "piling on".

What did surprise me, is that you Turtle made the Man-Crush, Bromance comment in the first place. Anyone with a bit of commonsense would know that statement is neither accurate or funny. If you were trying to be accurate, I would be here in the Soapbox championing (in case some of you need the definition: to defend, support, or promote a cause or person ) Mr. Beck and his efforts. For an example of what I am talking about see the thread where I accused JamnJim of a Man-Crush on O'reilly.

If you were trying to be funny, there would have to be some truth to the statement, otherwise it falls flat on its face. Otherwise known, as I like to say, "An Epic Fail" on your attempt at humor.

Now, for the moment you have been waiting for......... That's sarcasm by the way.

It's simple.......it is called integrity. Which in my opinion, Beck, O'reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Cable news(all of 'em), etc, etc, have none of.

With that said, one of the biggest reasons I post things from Beck is that it seems most, not all, here in the Soapbox are fans and followers of Beck and share the same views as he does. I could be wrong about that, but I'll go with my instincts on this one and take my chances that my instincts are correct. Beck seems to be the one who is putting out the most mis-information out there. And a lot of his allegations, statements, opinions, so on and so forth, have been debunked by professionals, experts, the Government(or boogeyman if you will), Historians and anyone else with a bit of common sense. I have heard numeroous times from members here in the Soapbox bragging about his ratings on his radio show and his television show on FoxNews, along with FoxNews' over all ratings.

When I post things that Beck says, I always follow it up with proof or information that contradicts what he is alledging or telling his audience as truth. Except for this thread where I only posted his comments. The reason I did that was to show that a common sense "Bill" being proposed for legislation and the original article EnglishLady posted(which was well written in my opinion), could be disparaged by the likes of Beck and FoxNews. What I was hoping for, was that others would come in and comment about Becks words and agree or argue his side disagreeing what the "Bill" really was. My fault, I should've waited to see if anyone didn't agree with the assesment of the article on the "Bill". Then if anyone was pointing out the intent of the "Bill" and maybe repeated things Beck or FoxNews were accusing the "Bill" of actually being, then I could've posted those things. Call it a premature posting on my part.

I do not know what you watch or listen to Turtle but if you get a chance, watch and listen to Beck's shows, listen to Limbaugh, hit up The Drudge Report, you get the picture. Then come here and listen to what some here say. It is astounding and quite comedic. So when I post things that Beck says, it for those that share his views. I for one do not think you share his views or more importantly his integrity, so I would not expect you to get it.

I like to get all sides of a story, in doing so, I hear and read a lot of different opinions. When I hear outright lies, halve truths, accusastions, to further someones agenda or to make a buck off of ignorance, I like to point it out. Let me tell ya, it is pretty easy to do here in the Soapbox.

 

[witness23]

On a final note...

"You really want to go down that road? Really?"

Sure, why not? It's either a bromance, or I am mistaken and it's sexual. It's clearly one or the other, otherwise you wouldn't be posting so much of Beck's crap here. So let's go down that road.

Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that it's clearly not one or the other. Give it a rest.

 

[layoutshooter]

Now please tell me, just how in the heck can you determine that "MOST" of those who post in the SoapBox listen to Beck? There is just NO WAY you can determine that. You are only making an assumption and we ALL know what that means. LOL!! That was a good one there Witness!! You have a great case of the "funnies" today!!