Hello:

I'm for removing ALL the regulations about food safety. I'm a winger too. The protection a consumer should have is to sue.. But, wait... The people who don't want regulations, ALSO want to limit how much you can sue for... They want it BOTH ways.

I don't know about you, but it looks to me like they want to set us consumers adrift... They say the free market will protect us..

Does anybody believe this claptrap?

excon

If they do away with food safety entirely then there could be severe outbreaks of very nasty diseases causing premature death. Maybe that's WHAT they want. To kill off more people their way.

The free market won't protect anyone.

And as far as suing someone over bad food is a really really BAD idea as the clever defense attorneys will claim that the food eaten did not make the plaintiff sick but something else did making it virtually impossible to sue and collect. I can see it now very clearly.

So what brought up this topic, Exie? Or are you bored as usual?

I'm for removing ALL the regulations about food safety. I'm a winger too. The protection a consumer should have is to sue..

That of course would be a winger position... a winger from another planet. But if you ask me ;the problem with food safety isn't a lack of regulations... it's over regulation with multiple agencies with overlapping responsibility of oversight. (I speak from experience having been in the food and,drug,industries my whole career) .
Here is a GAO evaluation of the salmonella scare :

In 2008, GAO testified before a House subcommittee that “FDA is one of 15 agencies that collectively administer at least 30 laws related to food safety. This fragmentation is the key reason GAO added the federal oversight of food safety to its High-Risk Series in January 2007 and called for a government wide reexamination of the food safety system.

The FDA and USDA inspections of 1,451 domestic food plants overlap contributed to the egg salmonella scare. The USDA Saw bugs and trash at egg farms but failed to inform the FDA .

Hello again, tom:

So, it's NOT regulations so much as it's ENFORCEMENT... I wonder if some of those enforcers are believers in the notion that government IS the problem.. You know, what your favorite president said.. If so, NO WONDER they didn't enforce diddly.

I think today's SEC is staffed with those same kind of people. But, they're ineffective for a DIFFERENT reason... It's hands off the crooks with them because their boss wants to get re-elected and the crook HAS the money...

I refer you to my GET BIG (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/crime/if-you-wanna-get-away-crime-get-big-587736.html) thread which is about this very thing. These are the results, of course, of the wrong headed Citizens United decision.

excon

I don't know how you conclude that over regulation is the result of regulators not doing their job. I often deal with FDA inspectors and I can assure you they are a dedicated group overall. I don't understand why you slander them. They have a job to do and they always attempt to do it in my opinion. I've yet to see one that slacked because they were philosophically opposed to the job they do... do you listen to yourself ?

Hello:

I'm for removing ALL the regulations about food safety. I'm a winger too. The protection a consumer should have is to sue.. But, wait... The people who don't want regulations, ALSO want to limit how much you can sue for... They want it BOTH ways.

I dunno about you, but it looks to me like they wanna set us consumers adrift... They say the free market will protect us..

Does anybody believe this claptrap?

excon

I'm not sure what claptrap you are referring to ex, the claptrap of wanting to do away with regulation, or the claptrap of believing the free market will protect you and ex I'm certainly for streamlining the legal process to get vexacious litigation out of the courts. If there is a regulation that is breached there should be a substantial penalty and punitative damages but leaving the sum up to a court?

The way this administration behaves you'd think regulations are meant to be used to bully American businesses without ever telling anyone why.

For the second time since 2009, Obama's DOJ has raided Gibson guitar facilities (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576530520471223268.html), one can only assume for the reason the DOJ suspects them of violating environmental regulations in the import of rosewood for their famed guitars. As the article states, "the government seems to be questioning whether some wood sourced from India met every regulatory jot and tittle."

Of course if you're Michelle Obama, it's OK to give one of those very guitars to the French First Lady (http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/News/Michelle-Obama-French-406/). But hey, why quibble?

Just what is it that this administration has against American business. It doesn't matter if Gibson has to spend tons of money defending themselves, losing production time or watching employees sit at home instead of feeding their families, the government must make sure they comply with "every jot and tittle" of federal regulations.

the government must make sure they comply with "every jot and tittle" of federal regulations.Hello again, Steve:

I'm left to wonder how you'd feel IF the company they were investigating produced MEDICINE that YOU are taking... I'll bet you'd APPLAUD the government requiring them to comply with "every jot and tittle" of federal regulations...

Or, maybe not. I have trouble telling when right wingers LIKE government intervention, and when they don't...

excon

Have you ever explored a federal regulation? I can't even understand what the hell they say, how am I supposed to comply with something as incomprehensible and confusing as say, CFR 49? I had to ship some fire alarm parts to Germany this year, took me half a day to figure out how to do it.

Have you ever explored a federal regulation?Hello again, Steve:

Sure I have. They're completely incomprehensible. But, just because our congress doesn't know how to write good law, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have any...

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Sure I have. They're completely incomprehensible. But, just because our congress doesn't know how to write good law, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have any...

I love good laws and good regulations, but we don't always agree on what "good" is. Either way, if they expect me to comply they need to make them comprehensible.

Another example of regulations run amok (http://www.theunion.com/ARTICLE/20110830/BREAKINGNEWS/110839991/-1/RSS). California is moving through their legislature a bill that would require parents "to provide workers' compensation benefits, rest and meal breaks and paid vacation time" to babysitters.


Assembly Bill 889 (authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, will require these protections for all “domestic employees,” including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers.

The bill has already passed the Assembly and is quickly moving through the Senate with blanket support from the Democrat members that control both houses of the Legislature – and without the support of a single Republican member. Assuming the bill will easily clear its last couple of legislative hurdles, AB 889 will soon be on its way to the Governor's desk.

Under AB 889, household “employers” (aka “parents”) who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers' compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck.

Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys' fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers – from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers. (On the bright side, language requiring an hour of paid vacation time for every 30 hours worked was amended out of the bill in the Senate.)

Unfortunately, the unreasonable costs and risks contained in this bill will discourage folks from hiring housekeepers, nannies and babysitters and increase the use of institutionalized care rather than allowing children, the sick or elderly to be cared for in their homes. I can't help but wonder if that is the goal of AB 889 – a terrible bill that needs to be stopped.

Terrible bill is an understatement. This is just plain stupid, you would have to hire 2 people to go on a date with your wife, a primary sitter and a reliever.

It's a bad bill but here's a better discussion of it minus the hyperbole:
AB 889 (Ammiano and V. Manuel Pérez): Domestic work employees. (California Assembly Bill) (http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_889/20112012/)

It's a bad bill but here's a better discussion of it minus the hyperbole:
AB 889 (Ammiano and V. Manuel Pérez): Domestic work employees. (California Assembly Bill) (http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_889/20112012/)

Excuse me once again for using an unapproved source. :rolleyes:

You just cited a portion of the bill, here's the whole thing (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0851-0900/ab_889_bill_20110712_amended_sen_v94.html). It's a bad bill and I didn't see any hyperbole in my source, but feel free to point it out if you can find it.

Ok, explain to me how your occasionally babysitter would require compensation benefits and paid vacation time under this bill?

Ok, explain to me how your occasionally babysitter would require compensation benefits and paid vacation time under this bill?

Really?


Existing law requires an employer to provide its employees with
Specified information regarding their wages either semimonthly or at
The time of each wage payment. Under existing law, this requirement
Does not apply to employers of persons who engage in specified types
Of household domestic service.

This bill would delete the exclusion for employers of persons who
engage in specified types of household domestic service, thereby
requiring those employers to provide the above-described information...

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
Following:

(a) As recognized by the State of California in Resolution Chapter
119 of the Statutes of 2010, it is the policy of the state to
Encourage and protect the rights of domestic work employees.

(b) California's domestic workers, which includes housekeepers,
Nannies, and caregivers for children, persons with disabilities, and
The elderly, work in private households to care for the health,
Safety, and well-being of the most important aspects of Californians'
Lives: their families and homes.SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) As recognized by the State of California in Resolution Chapter
119 of the Statutes of 2010, it is the policy of the state to
Encourage and protect the rights of domestic work employees.

(b) California's domestic workers, which includes housekeepers,
nannies, and caregivers for children, persons with disabilities, and
The elderly, work in private households to care for the health,
Safety, and well-being of the most important aspects of Californians'
Lives: their families and homes.[/B]

Now where's the hyperbole?

Do you believe a Friday evening babysitter for four hours would qualify under that bill?

Do you believe a Friday evening babysitter for four hours would qualify under that bill?
He does - he believes that bill means they get $10 an hour, 2 weeks vacation, health insurance and severance pay.

Someone has lost the plot

someone has lost the plotI know, I hate it when people write fiction when we ask for facts.

Do you believe a Friday evening babysitter for four hours would qualify under that bill?

Until I see the exception for babysitters then I think they will be able to use this law to make that case. Oh I think under 18 babysitters and illegal domestic workers will be excluded . But the Dems want domestic workers to be filtered through an agency ,preferably a state controlled agency using unionized workers. Ultimately the law will screw the adult babysitters of the State.

He does - he believes that bill means they get $10 an hour, 2 weeks vacation, health insurance and severance pay.


Dude, if your sole intent is to mock others you need another hobby. You also need to learn the meaning of 'hyperbole' if you're going to use the word, and to know when you've been thrashed in a debate. You have nothing but ad hominems and diversions, I have the truth on my side.

I know the meaning of hyperbole, as in your above quote and not my source. I know the meaning of "any man, woman and minor employed in any occupation", "domestic work employees" and "delete the exclusion". Man up, dude, you know I'm right.

Another example of regulations run amok (http://www.theunion.com/ARTICLE/20110830/BREAKINGNEWS/110839991/-1/RSS). California is moving through their legislature a bill that would require parents "to provide workers' compensation benefits, rest and meal breaks and paid vacation time" to babysitters.



Terrible bill is an understatement. This is just plain stupid, you would have to hire 2 people to go on a date with your wife, a primary sitter and a reliever.



I can't see anything in the legislation that mentions 'Friday night' (re the original post above). I would say this is the hyperbole being referred to. In other words the 'Friday night out' claim is being inferred from the preamble to the legislation.


Tut

That's not hyperbole, Friday night dinner and a movie is an Anerican tradition. Until the bill excludes the other tradition, hiring a teenage babysitter, the Friday night out reference is spot on.

Now, does anyone want to refute the claims on the facts, or just keep playing silly games?

That's not hyperbole, Friday night dinner and a movie is an Anerican tradition. Until the bill excludes the other tradition, hiring a teenage babysitter, the Friday night out reference is spot on.




Hi Speech,

That's what makes the original article's reference to Friday night a hyperbole. It is commits the fallacy of appealing to popularity. In other words, it is the writers intended aim to prove the claim true because of the tradition involved.

As stated before the conclusion reached in the article cannot be gleaned from the preamble which represents a statement about about the existing law and the intention of the legislation.

Tut

Hello again:

My right wing friends tell us that corporations don't need regulations because it's in themselves interest NOT to screw people...

But, when it comes to INDIVIDUALS acting in themselves interest, they seem to LOSE faith. So, they enact lots and lots of laws governing PERSONAL behavior... That's how come we're the worlds largest jailer...

I'm missing something here. Am I the only one?? Aren't individuals running corporations??

excon

Hi Speech,

That's what makes the original article's reference to Friday night a hyperbole. It is commits the fallacy of appealing to popularity. In other words, it is the writers intended aim to prove the claim true because of the tradition involved.

Appealing to popularity is not hyperbole. Hyperbole is exaggeration and there is none in the article. Debate the facts or not, OK?

Hyperbole is exaggeration and there is none in the article.
In big bold letters at the top the article leads off by calling it the "Babysitting bill".

The you said:

you would have to hire 2 people to go on a date with your wife, a primary sitter and a reliever.

In big bold letters at the top the article leads off by calling it the "Babysitting bill".

You do realize that media outlets write their own headlines.



The you said:

You would have to hire 2 people to go on a date with your wife, a primary sitter and a reliever

All true. If it's true it isn't hyperbole.

Can't follow your logic anymore, it makes my head ache.

Can't follow your logic anymore, it makes my head ache.

I can't help it if you can't figure out what hyperbole is. That's a good indication you should stop throwing the word around.

Oh I know what it means (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole).

It's your logic I can't follow. You say that there's none in the article, then I point out a case in the article headline and you reply with the fact that they write their own headlines. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Oh I know what it means (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole).

It's your logic I can't follow. You say that there's none in the article, then I point out a case in the article headline and you reply with the the fact that they write their own headlines. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

a) If the point of any of this was discussing the headline you MIGHT have a point, but since the bill in its current form DOES affect babysitters you don't.

b) I am addressing the subject matter not the headline, which is usually written by the paper's staff, not the contributing author. The headline is irrelevant to the discussion, which you refuse to engage in. You're busy playing games and trying to make me look silly. It won't work, it just makes you look petty.

c) You seem to think posting a link to part of the bill's text (http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_889/20112012/) is "discussion ([URL="https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/regulations-good-bad-593685-2.html#post2882800)" and it isn't.

Now, do you have anything to add to the discussion, or do you just want to play your silly games? If you want to play games play them by yourself because I am wasting no more time on you in this.

Hello again,

Can we cut the sniping please? I asked a very good question that you MISSED because you want to fight... Would somebody answer it please...

I await your response with baited breath.

excon

...or do you just want to play your silly games?.What I am trying to do is to get people to calm down on the inflammatory, divisive rhetoric that gets thrown around. It doesn't lead to discussion, it just leads to pedantic pejoratives hurled around.

What I am trying to do is to get people to calm down on the inflammatory, divisive rhetoric that gets thrown around. It doesn't lead to discussion, it just leads to pedantic pejoratives hurled around.

Someone left the irony on again.

Hello again,

Can we cut the sniping please??

As long as certain self-appointed board monitors whose admitted intent is to monitor my posts (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/weinergate-579675-7.html#post2820691) play games and sling bullsh*t instead of engaging in the discussion, I'm going to call them on it. You can either help me stop this nonsense or let it continue.

As long as certain self-appointed board monitors whose admitted intent is to monitor my posts (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/weinergate-579675-7.html#post2820691) play games and sling bullsh*t instead of engaging in the discussion, I'm going to call them on it. You can either help me stop this nonsense or let it continue.
You post misinformation and I'll call you on it. And that's true anyone who does it - you're just one of the worst offenders. :) And that post you linked to: that's when you were trying to chase me off this website for daring to correct you.

You post misinformation and I'll call you on it. And that's true anyone who does it - you're just one of the worst offenders. :) And that post you linked to: that's when you were trying to chase me off this website for daring to correct you.

Have you no shame?

Ovbiously not

Appealing to popularity is not hyperbole. Hyperbole is exaggeration and there is none in the article. Debate the facts or not, ok?

A hyperbole in politics can be employed to invoke strong feelings and emotions by the use of exaggeration. The article attempts to do this by creating a threat ( real or imagined) to the traditional Friday night out. By doing this it is also attempts to appeal to popularity as the means of distinguishing good legislation from bad legislation.

It is both an exaggeration and an appeal to popularity. In politics appeals to popularity are most effective when they use exaggeration. The article does both at the same time.

There is nothing in the preamble that can be used to determine the traditional Friday night out being under threat. It is also an exaggeration, but more likely false to suggest that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The Bill doesn't have to specifically exclude Friday night babysitters. The article implies a false dichotomy, i.e. their claim can only be true or false. It doesn't consider a third option which is the possibility that the article has provided insufficient evidence to draw a true or false conclusion. Assumptions made in the article are inadequate in this regard. Only the legislation itself will determine this.

Tut

A hyperbole in politics can be employed to invoke strong feelings and emotions by the use of exaggeration. The article attempts to do this by creating a threat ( real or imagined) to the traditional Friday night out. By doing this it is also attempts to appeal to popularity as the means of distinguishing good legislation from bad legislation.

It is both an exaggeration and an appeal to popularity. In politics appeals to popularity are most effective when they use exaggeration. The article does both at the same time.

There is nothing in the preamble that can be used to determine the traditional Friday night out being under threat. It is also an exaggeration, but more likely false to suggest that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The Bill doesn't have to specifically exclude Friday night babysitters. The article implies a false dichotomy, ie their claim can only be true or false. It doesn't consider a third option which is the possibility that the article has provided insufficient evidence to draw a true or false conclusion. Assumptions made in the article are inadequate in this regard. Only the legislation itself will determine this.

Tut

I linked to the bill, and quoted the relevant sections. What is all this about a preamble? I'm not basing anything on a preamble, nor was the state senator that penned the column. The bill specifically spelled out caregivers, including those who care for children, and spelled out its intent to eliminate such exclusions. That my friend would include Friday night babysitters.

I linked to the bill, and quoted the relevant sections. What is all this about a preamble? I'm not basing anything on a preamble, nor was the state senator that penned the column. The bill specifically spelled out caregivers, including those who care for children, and spelled out its intent to eliminate such exclusions. That my friend would include Friday night babysitters.

From the bill:


(2) "Domestic work employee" does not include any of the
following:
(A) Any person who performs services through the In-Home
Supportive Services program under Article 7 (commencing with Section
12300) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
(B) Any person who is the parent, grandparent, spouse, sibling,
Child, or legally adopted child of the domestic work employer.
(C) Any person under 18 years of age who is employed as a
babysitter for a minor child of the domestic work employer.

So all weekend babysitters are under 18 ? What about the college aged baby sitter ?

What this is ,is an attempt to make sure that all care giver services are filtered through some state approved agency... next they will need state licensing or SEIU certification.

The bill specifically spelled out caregivers, including those who care for children, and spelled out its intent to eliminate such exclusions. That my friend would include Friday night babysitters.


Hi Speech,

Absence of evidence (in the form of a Bill to eliminate certain exclusions such as the Friday night babysitter) is not evidence of absence. You wrongly assuming that the Bill as it stands is proof that the Friday night baby sitter has been or will be eliminated.

Such things as the extent to which a babysitter is subject to the control of the employer, in order to determine the numbers of hours worked will be tested when the Bill comes in being.

Even though you argue the intent of the Bill is to eliminate the occasional babysitter no one can say this will happen until the Bill has been tested. This position is still valid even if the only intent of the Bill was the eliminate the occasional babysitter.


Tut

It is not too hard to determine why this legislation came about. Who are the so called exploited domestic workers ? Certainly not the ones hired through agencies . Let's stipulate that there are exploited domestic help in Ca. Meg Whitman's campaign proved this is so . But will this bill prevent the hiring of illegals for the purpose of domestic help ? No... they will still work under the radar . So who is left then ? The baby sitter looking to make some off the books cash. This is really not an effort to protect these workers as much as it is an attempt to get them on the tax roles .
The state wants total control of the industry . Not a surprise with a people's republic fabian state.

This is really not an effort to protect these workers as much as it is an attempt to get them on the tax roles .Hello again, tom:

On the one hand, Republicans complain about the 47% of the POOR people who don't pay federal income taxes... But, when they attempt to FIX it, you complain about that too..

What's up with that?

excon

It is not too hard to determine why this legislation came about. Who are the so called exploited domestic workers ? Certainly not the ones hired through agencies . Let's stipulate that there are exploited domestic help in Ca. Meg Whitman's campaign proved this is so . But will this bill prevent the hiring of illegals for the purpose of domestic help ? No ... they will still work under the radar . So who is left then ? The baby sitter looking to make some off the books cash. This is really not an effort to protect these workers as much as it is an attempt to get them on the tax roles .
The state wants total control of the industry . Not a suprise with a people's republic fabian state.


Yes, has there ever been any legislation that hasn't produced unintended consequences? Probably not.


Tut

Hi Speech,

Absence of evidence (in the form of a Bill to eliminate certain exclusions such as the Friday night babysitter) is not evidence of absence. You wrongly assuming that the Bill as it stands is proof that the Friday night baby sitter has been or will be eliminated.

Such things as the extent to which a babysitter is subject to the control of the employer, in order to determine the numbers of hours worked will be tested when the Bill comes in being.

Even though you argue the intent of the Bill is to eliminate the occasional babysitter no one can say this will happen until the Bill has been tested. This position is still valid even if the only intent of the Bill was the eliminate the occasional babysitter.


Tut

Tut, sorry buddy but it's really annoying to have one's style analyzed, rhetorical devices described and told the alleged fallacy of one's argument instead of just discussing the point.

You do realize this bill addresses another law so the final regulation is not in evidence yet. So the argument at the moment is on the bill as it stands. That's the point of publicizing now it so such idiotic provisions are made known BEFORE it becomes law.

It "deletes" exclusions from the current law. It specifically adds coverage to babysitters over the age of 18 (which NK pointed out) that are not family members - a point which was conceded in my OP on the bill (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/regulations-good-bad-593685-2.html#post2882797) by the author of the article - "unless it is a family member." I have been 100 percent right on the facts from the beginning.

An overwhelming majority of babysitters are under 18 or family members so I fail to see how it affects the Friday night out or how you would need a primary sitter and a reliever as you mentioned. If this bad bill passes (which I doubt) how would they monitor the occasional 19 year old babysitter from next door?

Tut, sorry buddy but it's really annoying to have one's style analyzed, rhetorical devices described and told the alleged fallacy of one's argument instead of just discussing the point.

You do realize this bill addresses another law so the final regulation is not in evidence yet. So the argument at the moment is on the bill as it stands. That's the point of publicizing now it so such idiotic provisions are made known BEFORE it becomes law.

It "deletes" exclusions from the current law. It specifically adds coverage to babysitters over the age of 18 (which NK pointed out) that are not family members - a point which was conceded in my OP on the bill (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/regulations-good-bad-593685-2.html#post2882797) by the author of the article - "unless it is a family member." I have been 100 percent right on the facts from the beginning.



Hi speech,

I don't deliberately set out to offend anyone. If this is the case then I apologize. I will approach the problem from a different angle without the analysis of the language.

Yes, I do realize the Bill addresses the current legislation . The Bill is an an attempt to, 'tighten up' the perceived inadequacies of the current legislation.

I haven't disputed any our your facts relating to the age of babysitters or anything else in the Bill for that matter. I am not for or against the legislation so I don't really care if it becomes law or not.

Your facts may well speak for themselves but facts don't always manifest themselves in a way the legislators intend (as Tom's recent post points out). Has there ever been any legislation that hasn't had unintended consequences?

Again, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the facts, but there is a need to do so without the emotive language attached. We cannot say for certain that employers of occasional baby sitters will have to pay overtime, provide additional relief after a certain amount of hours are worked. We may deduce this from the facts, and it may well turn out that way, but this does not make it so at the moment.

The original article presents these outcomes as a certainty. It is possible and even probable, but it is not certain.

Perhaps we would do better to present these' idiotic provisions' in a way that doesn't appeal to the emotions and popular sentiment.

Tut

Tut, we're human. We can't have discussions on issues that affect our lives without emotion. Granted, the rhetoric can be toned down from such things as "death panels," pushing granny over the cliff or accusing your fellow Americans of wanting to see blacks "hanging on a tree. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62396.html)" "Babysitter bill" is pretty harmless considering...

That's strawman argument of course. If you're comparing yourself to the worst that's out there and that's the baseline you want to better then you've achieved your goal. Some of us start from a higher baseline.

That's strawman argument of course. If you're comparing yourself to the worst that's out there and that's the baseline you want to better then you've acheived your goal. Some of us start from a higher baseline.

Dude, I'm not misrepresenting Tut's position so there is no straw man. And what's funny is I even used examples from both sides to concede we can tone down the "appeal to the emotions and popular sentiment" that Tut suggested we do. So even though I agreed with Tut, used bipartisan examples and didn't misrepresent his position, you went out of your way to be critical of my answer. Find someone else to stalk, I'll put my integrity up against yours any day.

Dude, I'm not misrepresenting Tut's position so there is no straw man. Comparing "babysitter bill" to people wanting to see blacks hanging from trees is indeed misrepresenting his position, don't you think?

Comparing "babysitter bill" to people wanting to see blacks hanging from trees is indeed misrepresenting his position, don't you think?

You just never give up do you? Don't you have anything better to do than try in vain to make me look stupid? It really makes you look quite petty, don't you think?

The only position I addressed was this line, "Perhaps we would do better to present these' idiotic provisions' in a way that doesn't appeal to the emotions and popular sentiment."

I agreed, while offering a contrast to the harmlessness of "babysitter bill" to the bullsh*t being slung elsewhere. If I'm in agreement it's pretty damn silly to accuse me of misrepresenting his position.