Comments on Obama vs. Clinton. Food Fight
Thought I couldn't be any more against her.
Which one is more friendly to pig shit lagoons?
And they gave more to Clinton in her 2004 run than they gave to Obama in his 2006 run.
I think you messed up the years there.
@3. True. Fixed it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
@2:
Regulate CAFOS: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), which raise more than 40 percent of U.S. livestock, comprise a larger share of the livestock industry every year. Barack Obama has worked for tougher environmental regulations on CAFOs. He has supported legislation to set tough air and water pollution limits for livestock operations, including limits on nitrogen, phosphorus, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and other pollutants. In the Obama Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency will strictly monitor and regulate pollution from large CAFOs, with fines for those who violate tough air and water quality standards. Obama strongly supports efforts to ensure meaningful local control.Limit EQIP Funding for CAFOs: Barack Obama believes that we should help farmers find the resources to comply with environmental requirements. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) provides important financial support to farmers seeking to improve the environmental quality of their operations. Unfortunately, the 2002 Farm Bill lifted the cap on the size of livestock operations that can receive EQIP funding, enabling large livestock operations to receive EQIP payments and subsidizing big CAFOs by as much as $450,000. Obama supports reinstating a strict cap on the size of the livestock operations that can receive EQIP funding so that the largest polluters have to pay for their own environmental clean up.
Tightening Controls on CAFOs - Hillary believes that we can strike a better balance between animal agriculture and protecting our environment and rural quality of life. She recognizes the hazards that CAFOs pose to health and the environment, and strongly supports local control over CAFO siting decisions. She also supports federal rules to control air and water pollution from corporate factory farms, and believes we should take steps to ensure that conservation funding reaches more family farms.
ugh... so this is what we have to endure for the next month? splitting hairs over back-burner issues that only seem to matter to people once every 4 years?
maybe a media coronation wouldn't have been such a bad thing after all.
@7
Our food source is the basis of our civilization!
@7: I eat meat. This matters to me every fucking day.
It's not really surprising. Bill was extremely cozy with agribusiness. He even got the highway weight limits on trucks raised as a favor he owed Tyson chicken, if I remember correctly.
It's sad, but everyone owes somebody something once in office. We aren't voting for a leader, we're voting for the sum of lobbyists that we most agree with.
#7, Since much of this is controlled by executive branch appointments, the only time people have control over this is once every 4 years.
#9, No matter what regulations are put into place or enforced, your choice to eat meat is still worse for the environment than if you drive or any other choice you make.
hey, i agree it's important stuff, and i don't even eat meat. but will this really make or break which candidate anyone supports? this issue will fall off the map the minute the elections are over.
anyway i guess i should just shut up since clinton clearly comes off as the bad guy-person here.
@11: Fuck you and your self-righteousness. Your decision to be alive is far worse for the environment than the alternative.
BS, No. 11. Your choice to have children is the worst choice for the environment you can make.
Have you ever even stopped to calculate your kids' carbon feetprints? They're evil--evil!
So go ahead and feel free to eat meet, Greg. Just don't have kids. And if you do, don't let them eat meet--you're pretty much digging a hole at that point that Mother Earth can't climb out of.
Meat.
Ack!
I can imagine that for someone that owns one of those farms, or works on one, or lives near one, it might make or break which candidate they support and even continue to be a topic of some interest after the elections are over. But vote for the candidate with the best hairstyle if you want, Brandon.
I'm going to eat meat together with my sixteen children. Then we're going to drive my Hummer over a meadow full of rare mountain wildflowers.
16 - and i'm sure so many of those farm workers are regular slog readers. anyway i choose my candidate based on height.
You'd actually take a 4x4 off road?!
Hippie.
I thought it was fun how well all the Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, and Gore supporters got along so well at the SLOG party last night.
Just saying.
Also, agribusiness and farming are not always one in the same. There are good, very self sufficient families out there raising head of cattle for your (hopefully mine!) dinner, and then there's the the huge land moguls that fit nothing into the "please Farm Aid bail us out" stereotype the media has been pitching us city dwellers.
The point I'm (barely) making is that argument, eating meat = bad for the environment, is misleading and oversimplified.
@11 - wrong. Giving up driving generally does far more than giving up meat. And your supermarket has plenty of meatless products with a worse carbon footprint than a broiler chicken has, as it happens. It's more complicated than just "vegetarian = green".
"your supermarket has plenty of meatless products with a worse carbon footprint than a broiler chicken has..."
ditto for most organic items.
O-bysmal
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).