User Profile: zapparules

zapparules

Member Since: September 24, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [-5] May 22, 2015 at 10:18am

    39thforlife
    Now THAT was a funny post.
    No such thing as a water shortage!
    TOO FUNNY!

    Your humor is only outdone by your utter ignorance.

  • [-3] May 22, 2015 at 9:57am

    RJJ
    Failed evaluation of me – BECAUSE you have no idea as to the amount of effort I put into such.
    This is but ‘play time’ for me.
    Near effortless

    Now as compared to say… The efforts you go to to not give your position on these matters…
    That either takes lots of effort or… You’ve been so well trained to not reveal your personal positions on anything… That such training took some effort I bet.

  • [-1] May 22, 2015 at 9:55am

    JGraham III
    If you’re at all interested in ‘expiration date technology’…
    I first read about this when I was over in Europe last year. In Norway in fact – where a young inventor of this technology came from. (They are far further ‘ahead’ of us when it comes to efforts to reduce waste.)

    Young inventor’s intelligent food expiry label could save tonnes of needless waste
    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/10/intelligent-food-expiry-label-waste-bump-mark

    Could This Tiny Sensor Make Food Sell-by and Expiration Dates a Thing of the Past?
    http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/12/11/tiny-sensor-make-food-sell-expiration-dates-obsolete

    Necessity often becomes the Mother of Invention.
    (Not to be confused with the Mothers of Invention)

  • [-10] May 22, 2015 at 9:50am

    “divine irony”?
    The only thing divine about it is that you hold some twisted god-based belief that it is such.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-6] May 22, 2015 at 9:49am

    NativeAmericanYepbornhere
    The Navy (military) pretty much has access to unlimited funds.
    So who is to pay for the VERY costly water desalination process for states / communities in need?
    California is not the only state with severe water shortages.

    And so is this a problem to be manged solely on a state by state basis?

    Let’s say a cost-effective means at desalination is identified. But let’s say yours is a land-locked state in need of water – and that your state is then dependent upon another state (or states) allowing water pipelines across their states.
    Should those other states be allowed to say ‘No’ to such pipelines crossing their states? Should they be allowed to ‘jack-up the price’ to whatever amount they want – for the right to pass thru such pipelines?

    Our nation (and globe) is faced with some BIG challenges – some of which are only going to become MUCH BIGGER challenges. How we deal with them TOGETHER (through compromise – there’s that dirty word so many on the Right don’t like) – will tell a lot about our ‘character’ as a people (individuals) and as a nation.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-9] May 22, 2015 at 9:39am

    RJJ
    And what then when the same challenges now facing CA – with respect to limited water availability – strikes elsewhere / the rest of the country? (In fact, numerous other states are facing similar challenges.)

    This story is very much ‘interrelated’ to the other one about food redistribution. Perhaps a big difference being though that we here in America CURRENTLY have an abundance of food. (Well at least most people have access to an abundance of food.) But that almost certainly will not always be the case.

    And so RJJ… Like with the food redistribution story… Are you going to grace us with your position on this matter? Are you willing to offer what you think about forced or voluntary water conservation / recycling?

    Should the govt – in such extreme instances – be able to force water conservation / recycling?

    As I asked another poster on the other story…
    Just because a business (or other) CAN AFFORD to consume and / or waste as much water as they want… Should they be allowed to? Especially when such use / waste has such a negative impact on others.
    Water is a CRITICAL staple of life. Does it not demand reasonable and responsible oversight and regulation by the society dependent upon it?

    Responses (5) +
  • [-5] May 22, 2015 at 9:26am

    rickroland
    Tyrannical?

    Just because a business CAN (afford to be wasteful with food) – does that mean it should be allowed to be so?
    Let me present this to you.
    If you lived in a society where food was very scarce – and there are indeed places like that (too many of them actually) – and the very lives of some depended upon access to food…
    Would it not be the moral responsibility of that society to make sure all possible was done to limit food waste?

    Here in America so many of us live with an abundance of food (available). We’ve been ‘blessed’ with vast lands (to grow and harvest food from) – as well as easy access to numerous other resources.
    But what if it wasn’t like that? What if it wasn’t going to always be like that?

    We’re talking about one of the most critical ‘staples’ of life… Food. That with water…
    And with respect to water… We are indeed right now seeing what happens when there is NOT an abundance of such.
    Just because a business (or other) CAN AFFORD to waste water… Does that mean it should be allowed to be so? When the wasting of such means some others will go without (and such absence of such COULD perhaps be life threatening.

    So is it tyrannical for a society to TRY and ‘serve’ / benefit / SAVE as many lives as possible?

    Responses (1) +
  • [-2] May 22, 2015 at 9:16am

    Coming from some of you folks…
    I take such personal attacks as a sign that I am having the desired impact on the desired audience.

  • [-5] May 22, 2015 at 8:51am

    ultraright
    Thank you. Good points.
    As you may see… I ‘clarified’ my position on this.

    Whereas in a case like, say… A chemical manufacturer where I indeed do believe such businesses should be forced to have oversight and (sometimes very strict – and yes, even costly) regulations to follow – regulations that aim to specifically PROTECT citizens…
    When it comes to (business) situations where there MIGHT be ‘optional’ or additional benefit that could come from certain actions of business… I would try to stay away from forcing such businesses to act in such a manner and would rather they were ‘motivated’ to act in such a manner. Motivate AND remove barriers that might be keeping them from doing so. (Like remove certain liability threats.)

  • [-10] May 22, 2015 at 8:44am

    WOW!!!
    RJJ ACTUALLY has stated a definitive position!
    Mark your calendars folks. This is truly a RARE event.

    Now if you could only reveal WHY you think (private) business should not be forced by the govt to redistribute (good) food that they otherwise destroy.
    Shall I guess?
    My guess would be because you are one that believes govt has no right (or little right?) to tell (private) business what it can and can not do.

    Do you think society has a moral responsibility to care for those in most need?
    Do you think govt – acting as the ‘representative’ of society – has a (moral) responsibility to care for those in most need?

    And actually… I do notbelieve businesses should be ‘forced’ to redistribute (vs destroy) food BUT… Rather I believe ‘policy’ can be enacted to BETTER ALLOW for / MOTIVATE businesses to redistribute.
    Like Dushman Kush pointed out the “Good Samaritan” law that relieves businesses of liability… I think govt can / SHOULD do more along those lines.

    Business is ‘driven’ almost exclusively by the bottom line and that. too often, does not equate to ‘what is best for society’.
    Capitalism IS INDEED THE BEST system for giving the most people the best opportunities at improving their lives and the lives of those around them – HOWEVER… Capitalism can also ‘blind’ people and allow for (possibly great) harm – to those it is not directly benefiting.
    THAT is where / WHY I see a govt role in ‘motivating’ for (possibly?) greater benefit ‘from the system’.

  • [-5] May 22, 2015 at 8:16am

    RJJ
    As Lloyd Drako somewhat pointed out…
    There is a HUGE difference between actions by local authorities to restrict how / when it is allowed to feed the homeless / hungry — and policy or laws dictating ‘food management’ (expired foods, etc.)

    And so why am I an ***** for my post RJJ?
    Because I simply ask you to give your actual position on such ‘policies’?
    Why does that offend you so much? WHY are you SO unwilling to give your position on such matters? (You certainly seem more than willing to give your ‘position’ when it comes to attacking others who challenge you?)

    It’s a REAL SIMPLE question RJJ.
    Yes – or No.
    Do you believe we should have govt policy to (better) allow for the re-distribution of food that would otherwise be destroyed?
    And then if you really want to push the boundaries of your abilities… Maybe you could explain WHY you think Yes or No to the question.
    As in… ‘No I do not believe we should have any formal govt policy for the redistribution of food that would otherwise be destroyed BECAUSE… ???

    Or…
    Yes. I DO believe we should have govt policy that (better) allows for the redistribution of food that would otherwise be destroyed BECAUSE…
    Because I (me personally) believe it is a moral ‘crime’ – a ‘societal crime’ – that we, as an ‘advanced society’ allow such a massive waste / destruction of ‘good’ food – when SO MANY are going hungry each day in this country. Or the food could be used in other ways – like for animal feed or the like.

  • [3] May 22, 2015 at 8:03am

    Really Jenyan C. Martinez?
    Really Somerset Academy?

    Some folks / some institutions take this kind of thing way too far.

    “a captive audience that would be subjected to her religious beliefs”
    Really?

    This is a student – standing in front of her class – fulfilling her assignment. The teacher / school gave her – no, assigned her – a captive audience!
    This is NOT a representative of the school or town – a tax-payer-funded person or entity with a captive audience.
    BIG difference.

    “his daughter is “holding up very well” in light of the case.”
    Well I would hope so. This was by no means some sort of traumatic experience for the kid.

  • [3] May 22, 2015 at 7:47am

    I like Mr. Johnson.
    (I guess if you meet him in person you ‘better’ like Mr. Johnson! :)

    But besides that..
    Pretty much anyone can become “Ordained”.
    From the Universal Life Church…
    http://www.ulc.org/
    Just $139.99 will get you all you need to be on your way to a life of ordained ministry.
    Can’t be any worse than some of the ‘formally recognized’ ministers out there.

  • [52] May 22, 2015 at 7:41am

    Man are you folks shallow

    Responses (5) +
  • [-11] May 22, 2015 at 7:32am

    But what is your position on this matter RJJ?
    Do you believe food distributors and the like should be ‘forced’ by govt to NOT just throw away / destroy ‘old food?
    It’s a pretty simple question RJJ.
    It’s really pretty easy to offer where you stand on this matter.
    Do you think we – as a nation / states / local communities – should continue to allow / do next to nothing with respect to the massive amount of wasted food – or not???

    And just to note…
    ‘Locally’… Rules vary. It is my understanding that some foods are not allowed to be donated while others can. I know many of the our local food distributors (grocery stores, etc) DO donate (some items) to the local food banks and the like.

    And oh, also just to note…
    I personally think WE SHOULD enact some sort of policy so that otherwise wasted or destroyed food is able to be (more easily) donated (or used for animal feed or the like).

    Responses (7) +
  • [-2] May 21, 2015 at 6:50pm

    I just love stories like this.

    First. Most people who support WHICHEVER candidate usually can’t name more than a couple of their accomplishments (if that).

    And second. With respect to this being about Hillary…
    Just hearing that many support her yet are unable to identify any of her accomplishments – YET will STILL vote for her… That must just irk so many conservative / righties.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-1] May 21, 2015 at 6:41pm

    And what about folks who…
    Ride motorcycles or off-road bikes / quads?
    Or who partake in other ‘higher risk’ activities – like sky diving or white water rafting?
    What about people who can only afford (or choose) to drive less safe vehicles – or how they drive (aggressive, etc.)

    So do we rate EVERYTHING???

  • [-2] May 21, 2015 at 6:37pm

    justangry
    Do we live ‘societal’ lives or fully independent lives?

    The reasonable and responsible people I know are able to focus not only on individual responsibility and accountability BUT ALSO on societal responsibilities and accountability.

    Responses (4) +
  • [-4] May 21, 2015 at 6:33pm

    Monk
    Who is “they”

    Is not Florida a (mostly) Republican-run state?
    And so would such a ‘failure’ as the one you seem to be offering not be the responsibility of Florida Republicans?

    I thought only (progressive) Democrats failed in such a manner.

  • [1] May 21, 2015 at 6:26pm

    RedHarley
    Can you cite any undeniable research that proves that “other drugs are sure to follow and/or… drug legalization equates to greater drug use?

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love