0
   

More proof: Those wacky libs in California...

 
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 01:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

Right. Nobody is interested in your rehashing of many of the same, tired Republican arguments that we've all seen before, ALV.


Why do you assume I'm a repub diehard? I think the Bush admin will go down as one of the most inept, corrupt admins in history. But I can remain logical about it.

As I stated in a post on this thread (and I hate rehashing, if I knew you paid attention, I wouldn't have to do so) I don't believe the gov should dictate who can marry who, what a woman will do with her own body, or interfere with a free people.

I try to stay consistent in my beliefs.

So let me ask you, what do YOU believe is going on in Sac? Is this good government? You are strangely quiet on the issue...
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 01:23 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

Why can't you just be honest and say that you don't know what the effect of the ban will be? Because you don't have it in ya.


No, but the University of Califonia at Davis conducted a study that revealed the effect of Prop 2 would destroy the egg industry in CA and raise prices.

As did editorials in the LA Times and the SF Chron, both somewhat liberal newspapers who usually support animal activists.

But oh, I already said that, didn't I? And you ignored it. It's like talking to a wall. Like I said, put your fingers in your ears, hum real loud, and pretend the real world isn't intruding on your lib/progressive paradise...

So, address the UC Davis study. I demand it. Very Happy
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 02:00 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
I can understand this.

I think most people, especially conservatives, will acknowledge Bush was a disaster. If nothing else, strictly from a fiscally conservative viewpoint.

But the right has been rotten with the whole "you are with us or the terrorists" bullshit. I acknowledge that. But some on the left, in their opposition, have been just as strident.

One of the reasons I left the repubs was their pandering to the religious right. Prayer, let alone creationism, in schools bugs the crap out of me. The abortion issue grinds at me.

But on the other hand, nothing scares me like big government. I can decide to quit going to a church. I can decide to quit donating my money to a church. But the government has absolute control over my finances, my movements, and my freedom.

Taxes will be whatever the government decides they are. And while I agree with libs/progressive on most social issues, I vehemently disagree with them on how much the government should be part of our lives. I believe, our current problems notwithstanding, in a free market. I believe government is inept at best, and corrupt at worst.

Why we would want them to run health care, or any other aspect of our lives (beyond national defense and some of the other issues we have already talked about) is beyond me.

Anyway, I understand why people get tight-jawed around here. Like you, I'm not that far off on some issues; on others, I'm worlds away.

I was just hoping for more than "You suck!" and You suck more!"

But I appreciate you taking the time to fill me in, dtom. And for the record, I don’t own or have any kind of stake/interest in a chicken farm. There are a couple in the adjacent county, though, and their economy will be hurt when they go under…
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 02:02 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

Why can't you just be honest and say that you don't know what the effect of the ban will be? Because you don't have it in ya.


No, but the University of Califonia at Davis conducted a study that revealed the effect of Prop 2 would destroy the egg industry in CA and raise prices.

As did editorials in the LA Times and the SF Chron, both somewhat liberal newspapers who usually support animal activists.

But oh, I already said that, didn't I? And you ignored it. It's like talking to a wall. Like I said, put your fingers in your ears, hum real loud, and pretend the real world isn't intruding on your lib/progressive paradise...

So, address the UC Davis study. I demand it. Very Happy


You didn't link to any of those. If you do, I will address them.

Cycloptichorn
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 02:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

You didn't link to any of those. If you do, I will address them.

Cycloptichorn


You need me to lead you by the hand to an editorial by a daily newspaper? Is it laziness or incompetence that prevents you from doing so?

Well, I'm not going to let you weasel out of this, cyclops, so here they are:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-ed-2prop25-2008sep25,0,2943482.story

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/23/EDAT132U4M.DTL

http://aic.ucdavis.edu/publications/eggs/egg_initiative.htm

The first two are LA Times/SF Chron editorials; the third link is the UC Davis study.

Oh, and did you know the NAACP is opposed to Prop 2?

“Proposition 2 will negatively impact many California consumers who are already struggling to make ends meet in these tough economic times. Several studies have clearly shown that Prop. 2 will force California egg farms out of business, eliminating thousands of jobs, depriving state and local governments of valuable tax revenues and driving up the costs of California-produced eggs,” said Alice A. Huffman, President of the California State Conference of the NAACP. “The economic impacts of Prop. 2 are unacceptable to the NAACP. Kitchen table issues are what matter most to many of our members. Californians need jobs to put food on the table and they need to be able to feed their families without breaking their budgets.”

Please address these, cyclops. Tell me how the both newspapers, UC Davis, and the NAACP are wrong.

I just listed the lib newspapers. Many other left-leaning papers are also opposed to Prop 2. Need me to list links?

I'm really interested in what you have to say about how disadvantaged people view Prop 2; remember what I said about the free market?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 03:02 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:


Thank you. Finally, someone ready to talk facts.

Trucking from out of state will require more labor; more jobs; all on out of state payrolls, with out of state payroll taxes, property taxes; truckers will be based out of state and will thus spend their pay in that state.
How do you know it is on out of state payrolls? Your argument is unprovable and just plain silly. People that live in CA drive trucks. People that deliver stuff to CA from other states can and do live in CA. Your statement has no basis in any facts in evidence.
Quote:

CA will get taxes on fuel purchased in state, and some fees via DMV permits, but it will be an overwhelming loss to the state across the board, income wise.
How so? You assumed that CA has no truck drivers and then use that as your basis for your argument. Your statement here is also silly.
Quote:

Chickens are not cannibals if left to run in larger areas? You might indicate how large, and when does it become economically unfeasible to quit ranching?
If the price of eggs goes up as much as you claim it would it would be feasible for every person to raise 4 chickens and get eggs themselves. It is becoming quite common for people to raise chickens themselves, even in metropolitan areas. You only need to get a waiver from your city allowing you to do it.
Quote:
When the amount of land, and what the state charges in property taxes
To the best of my knowledge the state of CA does not have any property tax. Please provide evidence that CA has a property tax. I am aware of local communities having property taxes but no state property tax.
Quote:
and other fees costs more to support than hens times acres, when does the cost of raising hens/chickens become too much?
Tell me what CA charges for property taxes so I can figure that in my formula.

Quote:
Even the 'inexpensive' areas of CA, where many of these farming operations take place, are becoming too expensive -and urbanized - to remain profitable.
Really? Based on what? Could you back up your statement with some facts please? Are you saying that factory farms are going to be forced out because of taxes? If so, why are you even arguing Prop2?
Quote:

And when has it become wrong to cull unhealthy hens?
I never said it was a wrong. I only pointed out that chickens live 2/7 less as long which clearly undercuts your argument about how healthy they are. NO chicken in a factory farm ever lives to 3 years old, let alone 7. Would humans be considered healthy if our life span was reduced to all of us dying at the age of 30? I think it is a false argument on your part that is ignoring facts to claim they are healthy because they are laying eggs. They are laying eggs because they are young and only are allowed to do so for a year or less.

Quote:
One of the problems of freeranging chickens is disease issues, not being able to cull individual chickens in time to prevent the infection of a whole flock. How much area are you indicating?
Really? Who told you, that chickens can't be culled in an open egg laying system? Chickens are NOT healthier in a factory farm. Disease in a factory farm can wipe out far more chickens than any open system simply because they are closer together.
The closer the birds are the more likely they are to spread disease. That just requires a little knowledge of immunology. Of course you can help prevent disease in both systems by the use of drugs and they are used quite extensively in factory farms.

Quote:

I haven't brought up the arguments some opponents of Prop 2 are voicing about bird flu, as I thought they were disingenuous. But with the amount of space you seem to be indicating to prevent cannibalism, maybe it should be addressed?
I don't know what argument you are bringing up since you haven't elaborated on it.


Quote:

Anyway, could you provide links to your arguments? I don't question your credentials, you're obviously knowledgeable. I would just like to know where you obtained your 'cannibal' info from.
My knowledge comes from years of raising chickens on a farm. Here is a link to information that I could have told you 30 years ago.
http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range556/Appl_BEHAVE/projects/Chicken_Cannibalism.html
Give chickens room to forage and there is no pecking of each other.

Quote:

As I stated earlier, I'm not opposed to all aspects of Prop 2. I just believe it is short sighted, and will not solve anything, as chicken farms will simply be moved out of state where they will continue to produce eggs in the same manner for California consumers.
Not necessarily. Chickens are an easy commodity to raise on any farm. Every farm could raise 100-200 laying hens per acre that forage in the fields and orange groves. A simple automatic feeding system is possible powered by solar. It could be organized to work like small dairy farms worked. A truck travels to several farms to pick up small quantities of eggs to be processed at a larger collection site. The only requirement is collecting the eggs daily.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 03:21 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Thanks for the links; it was laziness. It's not my responsibility to hunt up evidence to support your argument, but your responsibility to present that evidence.

I see that Parados is handling the economic foolishness nicely, so I will focus on the social aspect, and that's a simple question, really:

Should we do what is right, even if it is more expensive?

I say yes. And there's not much more to it than that. It is wrong to keep animals penned up in a cage to where they cannot move around, for their entire lives. If it's more expensive to raise meat when it can roam around, then so be it. I'm not persuaded by either editorial or the NAACP's opinion on this.

The LA Times boils down to a fallacious argument, which claims that we should take no action here, because we guarantee that action will be taken elsewhere. That's a foolish position. CA is a leader in our nation precisely because we are willing to do what is right, even at the expense of profits and tradition.

The SF Gate article isn't exactly against Prop. 2 in spirit, it merely thinks the legislature should deal with it, instead of a ballot measure. Hardly a strong stand against it.

The UC Davis paper does make a good case that it will hurt the egg industry. I don't care. If they currently rely upon a scheme which, in order to stay profitable, they have to treat animals cruelly, then they should close.

Quote:

Please address these, cyclops. Tell me how the both newspapers, UC Davis, and the NAACP are wrong.


The UC Davis study isn't wrong; the other two are opinions. The fact that I disagree with them doesn't make them right or wrong.

I predict, that when prop. 2 passes - which seems likely - you will see a marked rise in the number of cage-free farms and the sizes of those farms over the next several years, here in CA.

Cycloptichorn
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 03:40 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:


No, but the University of Califonia at Davis conducted a study that revealed the effect of Prop 2 would destroy the egg industry in CA and raise prices.

How much would it raise prices? Do you know?

With higher gas prices and transportation costs, the cost of locally produced eggs could well offset the transportation costs from another state.

The study says this
"our analysis cannot lead to
overall recommendations about the initiative."


Quote:

As did editorials in the LA Times and the SF Chron, both somewhat liberal newspapers who usually support animal activists.
Editorials that did studies? You are silly Lone Voice. I give you that.

0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 08:56 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

One of the reasons I left the repubs was their pandering to the religious right. Prayer, let alone creationism, in schools bugs the crap out of me. The abortion issue grinds at me.


right there with ya, alv.

i don't think i'll be going back to the gop either. any thoughts that i may have had about the party moving on from the whole deal they got going on post bush has evaporated with the mccain & palin ticket.

i was originally a hillary fan. and i still kind of wish she was the nominee.

but i gotta tell ya, dude. i'm not easily impressed by politicians. but barack obama has done it.

tell the truth, experience does have weight. but so does a clear vision of a better america than we've had lately. and obama seems to be smart enough to pull people with experience into his circle.

mccain? ehh, the palin thing isn't working out so good. i believe she's going to cost him the election. and i place at least part of his distraction on the b.s. she brought into the campaign with her. she's just surrounded by static.

yiu said that the health care issue is one of the things that worries you. you might want to take a look at obama's ideas. he's basically only trying to make sure that people who don't have insurance can get it. there's no demand that you take it if you have a policy that's working for you.

to me, it's just about working for the common good.

i'm one of the lucky folks who has decent insurance. but, it's through my wife's work with the school system. i worked for the last half of my work life in the recording and post production industries. it's almost completely dominated by "at will" clauses, and getting insurance is rare. the last company i worked at did offer insurance.

i went into sign up with the rep. she asked me if i'd had any serious illnesses as she began filling out my form. when i told her that i'd had quad bypass a couple of years before, she just stopped, closed the folder and said "i can't take you".

Aflak said Ah crap to me. Shocked

if my wife didn't have insurance, i'd be hosed. part of barack's thing is that people won't be turned down for pre-existing.

oh, and about "the most liberal member of the senate"? the gop says that stuff every election, right.

not trying to convert you. just something to think about.

but, from a lot of things you mentioned in your post, i recognize a lot of thoughts that went through my head as i left the republicans.

damn dude, you're on your way to being a liberal! Wink
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 09:10 pm
@parados,
Quote:

If the price of eggs goes up as much as you claim it would it would be feasible for every person to raise 4 chickens and get eggs themselves. It is becoming quite common for people to raise chickens themselves, even in metropolitan areas. You only need to get a waiver from your city allowing you to do it.


Your response is so full of wonder, I'll start with this.

This, I guess, is how you libs/progressives truly see the world. Everyone in the state raising chickens themselves, even in metro areas. A true worker's paradise, based on the Cuban model? Rolling Eyes

A waiver? Laughing Don't know where you live pal, but most cities won't allow fowl within city limits.

But you guys would have us living like peasants, wouldn't you?

Simply remarkable...

Re trucking, most out of state trucking into CA begins at its point of origin, mostly because of California's high registration requirements (ask any trucker). So yes, any shipment of out of state eggs will likely be made by out of state trucking firms.

Educate yourself, please.

I'm still waiting for your proof re chickens per acre before they cease cannibalistic behavior, chickenman. That was an interesting link you provided; it discussed diet, litter floor material, and foraging behavior. "There is an apparent inverse relationship between cannibalism and foraging behavior," it states. I saw where it said this doesn't occur in the wild.

Did you read the study? Prop 2 will not prevent cannibalism; your own study confirms this. The only solution would be to keep true free range chickens.

Is this realistic? Is this how you feed millions of Californians? Or do we just skip the eggs and eat granola?
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 09:38 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I'm just responding to the chicken stuff as I pass by.

Or was going to, until I see more to read.

So I suppose this is a bookmark but I've opinions lining up, possibly in more than one column.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 09:53 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

Thanks for the links; it was laziness. It's not my responsibility to hunt up evidence to support your argument, but your responsibility to present that evidence.

I see that Parados is handling the economic foolishness nicely, so I will focus on the social aspect, and that's a simple question, really:

Should we do what is right, even if it is more expensive?


But who, besides yourself and other Peta types, says you are right? I know this feels right to you. And in many aspects, other parts of Prop 2 strike me as being the 'right' thing to do, also. But not the hens issue of the prop.

Do you believe salmon and other fish should not be farmed? They are kept in small ponds or tanks, force fed, and simply raised for food. Zoos for entertainment? I'm against those, myself.

Is there much of a difference between a chicken and a fish? Until Finding Nemo came out, most people would say no.


Quote:
CA is a leader in our nation precisely because we are willing to do what is right, even at the expense of profits and tradition.


Not any longer. Unless by being a leader you mean being towards the bottom in educating our children, running a deficit in our state budget, or uncontrolled gov spending.



Quote:

I predict, that when prop. 2 passes - which seems likely - you will see a marked rise in the number of cage-free farms and the sizes of those farms over the next several years, here in CA.

Cycloptichorn


Why do you think this? You really have no basis, other than wishful thinking. The reason the editorials - and the NAACP - are opposed to Prop 2 is because they believe - which the UC Davis study confirms - it will drive food prices up. Remember, eggs are used in many foods, and in many of the food manufacturing plants in CA. The UC Davis study showed the egg industry will not survive Prop 2, and no matter how badly you want it to be, cage free designer farms will not be able to fill the demand required at the cost the market will bear.

So again, caged chickens (probably the same chickens, trucked to a different state?) will still be laying eggs. And we'll still be buying them.

We'll just be paying more for them.

I know you don't care; most animal activists routinely put the welfare of animals before people. Nothing anyone says here will change your mind, and that certainly wasn't my intention here.

But you are being disingenuous when you say cage free farms will "pick up the slack" without any proof. You've yet to post a link to back up any of the assertions you have so confidently stated; why is that?



Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 10:00 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Quote:


Why do you think this? You really have no basis, other than wishful thinking. The reason the editorials - and the NAACP - are opposed to Prop 2 is because they believe - which the UC Davis study confirms - it will drive food prices up. Remember, eggs are used in many foods, and in many of the food manufacturing plants in CA. The UC Davis study showed the egg industry will not survive Prop 2, and no matter how badly you want it to be, cage free designer farms will not be able to fill the demand required at the cost the market will bear.


I think the cost will rise, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to ensure that we do the right thing. There will be several years, 6 I believe, for farmers to figure out something new.

More importantly, though -

Quote:

But who, besides yourself and other Peta types, says you are right?


Isn't that the beauty of it? We'll find out!

Cycloptichorn
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 10:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

Quote:


Why do you think this? You really have no basis, other than wishful thinking. The reason the editorials - and the NAACP - are opposed to Prop 2 is because they believe - which the UC Davis study confirms - it will drive food prices up. Remember, eggs are used in many foods, and in many of the food manufacturing plants in CA. The UC Davis study showed the egg industry will not survive Prop 2, and no matter how badly you want it to be, cage free designer farms will not be able to fill the demand required at the cost the market will bear.

I think the cost will rise, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to ensure that we do the right thing. There will be several years, 6 I believe, for farmers to figure out something new.

More importantly, though -

Quote:

But who, besides yourself and other Peta types, says you are right?

Isn't that the beauty of it? We'll find out!

Cycloptichorn


I would agree that we could just sit back and find out, except for a couple of things.

First, do you recall the demand the environmentalists made a number of years ago that refineries begin adding MTBE to gasoline? Because it lowered emissions, it was forced on us in CA; we paid more for our gas than motorists in other states, but we were told "it was the right thing to do."

Well, look where that got us. Groundwater contamination, it led to much bigger problems than it solved. This is when, 1: I realized business and the gov pandered to environmentalists, and 2: not to trust any of them.

Second, a couple of years ago libs/progressives told us ethanol was the wave of the future. I'm all for alternative energy; I think we've actually passed peak oil and we're not long for our current oil-based economy.

But we were told corn-based ethanol was the future. Before the free market kicked in, and food prices started going up, of course, and wrecked that idea.

There are always unintended consequences to all the feel-good initiatives people force on society. So that's what scares me; yep, we'll find out...
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 07:57 am
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

If the price of eggs goes up as much as you claim it would it would be feasible for every person to raise 4 chickens and get eggs themselves. It is becoming quite common for people to raise chickens themselves, even in metropolitan areas. You only need to get a waiver from your city allowing you to do it.


Your response is so full of wonder, I'll start with this.

This, I guess, is how you libs/progressives truly see the world. Everyone in the state raising chickens themselves, even in metro areas. A true worker's paradise, based on the Cuban model? Rolling Eyes
You never did say how much you thought eggs would go up. My statement is prefaced with an "if" based on your statements that show a fear of pricing eggs to the point that it seems people can barely afford them.
Quote:

A waiver? Laughing Don't know where you live pal, but most cities won't allow fowl within city limits.
You need a waiver since most cities won't allow them. What part of that didn't you understand? It is not uncommon for citizens to get waivers for all kinds of local laws. Everything from where you can build your fence to keeping chickens. If egg prices are $40 a dozen, believe me, cities will give waivers to anyone that asks.
Quote:

But you guys would have us living like peasants, wouldn't you?
Raising chickens makes a person a peasant?What kind of nonsense is that from you? I know people that make over $100K a year and raise chickens. I don't consider them peasants. I do consider you to be naive and uninformed however when you make comments like that.
Quote:

Simply remarkable...

Re trucking, most out of state trucking into CA begins at its point of origin, mostly because of California's high registration requirements (ask any trucker). So yes, any shipment of out of state eggs will likely be made by out of state trucking firms.
Most trucking begins at its point of origin? More nonsense from you. Truckers do NOT carry loads only from their home to other places. They prefer a full load both directions. CA produces and ships products as well as having the largest west coast ports for imports.
What is your source that truckers don't operate out of CA? If you want to argue about my knowledge from actual experience then you had better provide sources other than claiming you talked to a trucker once.
Quote:

Educate yourself, please.
I have been using over the road trucking for shipping for 20 years. It has changed over that time but your statement about truckers is unbelievable based on my experience. Truckers live in California. Truckers that live in CA carry product into California. Your argument that they don't is not supported by any facts.
Quote:

I'm still waiting for your proof re chickens per acre before they cease cannibalistic behavior, chickenman. That was an interesting link you provided; it discussed diet, litter floor material, and foraging behavior. "There is an apparent inverse relationship between cannibalism and foraging behavior," it states. I saw where it said this doesn't occur in the wild.

Proof? I never said I would offer proof. I spoke from experience. You don't like my experience so now are trying to denigrate what I said. I didn't just rely on my experience however. I also offered other information to back up what I said. Foraging reduces pecking. Foraging only means there is enough room for chickens to move about and peck the ground. If you prefer to try to denigrate instead of educating yourself I can't help you. Does it mean you could have 2000 chickens on an acre? Probably. Has there been a study to confirm that? Probably not.
Quote:

Did you read the study? Prop 2 will not prevent cannibalism; your own study confirms this. The only solution would be to keep true free range chickens.
study? I only provided a link because you wouldn't take my word without something to back it up. Speaking of which could you provide a study that shows that all trucking into CA is not done by CA citizens. I would love to see a source for that.
Quote:

Is this realistic? Is this how you feed millions of Californians? Or do we just skip the eggs and eat granola?
The last time I checked Californians don't live on eggs alone. I bet the average egg consumption there is similar to the rest of the US at less than 5 per week including processed foods. I don't think CA residents will suddenly starve if they reduce their egg consumption.

So.. Answer this simple question Lone Voice. Based on the UC Davis paper, what is the price difference between caged and cage free eggs? (It's easy to find but you haven't told us what it is yet.)



Of course you still haven't address this statement from the UC Davis study

"our analysis cannot lead to
overall recommendations about the initiative."

And yet, you ARE using the paper that says it can't make a recommendation as an argument against the initiative. I would consider that disingenuous on your part.
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 07:51 pm
@parados,
Was gone for a few days, helping to fund various CA programs by earning tax dollars.. Thanks for your patience.

Quote:

You need a waiver since most cities won't allow them. What part of that didn't you understand? It is not uncommon for citizens to get waivers for all kinds of local laws. Everything from where you can build your fence to keeping chickens. If egg prices are $40 a dozen, believe me, cities will give waivers to anyone that asks.


I'll start with this. You do realize CA cities are pretty regulation intense, right? Chickens? Good luck having more than three dogs. Most cities will NOT allow any sort of livestock (which chickens are) in a residential neighborhood.

County areas are more lenient. But waivers? Wishful thinking on your part. Show me a link to a city which allows chickens in their jurisdiction, please.

And believe or not, most city people do not want to raise chickens, libs/progressives amongst them. This is your solution?

Quote:

Most trucking begins at its point of origin? More nonsense from you. Truckers do NOT carry loads only from their home to other places. They prefer a full load both directions. CA produces and ships products as well as having the largest west coast ports for imports.
What is your source that truckers don't operate out of CA? If you want to argue about my knowledge from actual experience then you had better provide sources other than claiming you talked to a trucker once.


Actually, I'm pretty familiar with transportation in the dairy industry, which is what egg shipping would most resemble. What, you think trucks with out of state origin will stop at the CA state line to offload? Most of this shipping is inclusive from its point of origin to its point of offload, which would be a grocery warehouse/distribution center of some sort. Yes, some CA trucks will catch loads, but with refrige/time constraints, most transportation will be conducted by out of state companies who probably already have contracts with the out of state egg producers who will be supplying CA with eggs after this prop passes..

Anyway, your argument is specious. You use this to counter the job loss in the egg industry, which will be 3,500 jobs.


Quote:

The last time I checked Californians don't live on eggs alone. I bet the average egg consumption there is similar to the rest of the US at less than 5 per week including processed foods. I don't think CA residents will suddenly starve if they reduce their egg consumption.


4.9 billion eggs were produced in CA last year. Free range farms only produced a small bit of this total.

Will people starve? No, but like the NAACP stated, poor people will be impacted the most. Lots of foods made with eggs, and all it will go up in price.

The local Save Mart had eggs $2.79; $4.39 for cage free eggs. For those of you who want to feel good about yourselves, feel free; the option is already there.

Yet you insist on forcing your beliefs on the rest of us. You're worse the religious right...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/10/2020 at 10:21:37