View Full Version : Well i guess its time to talk about what on the Ballot
Talk about it.
Amendment 64: Definition of person and child
Amendment 68: Horse racetrack casino gambling
Prop 104: School Board meeting requirements
Prop 105: Labeling of GMO foods
I will start.
Amendment 64: No, even if i cared its not the right way to go about it.
Amendment 68: No, i do not care if people gamble but a promise of money to education never works out. It always goes to the general fund and that is the last thing i want.
Prop 104: Yes, public is public.
Prop 105: Yes, only because it is a thorn in the back of companies that get away with trespassing to test others fields, disregard the constitution under a SCOTUS ruling and litigate against farmers that did nothing wrong but do it the way they always have for generations. I do not hate GMO foods but i hate the way the companies that make it happen are above the law.
Ballot, sorry but can the mods fix the title.
ETA Thank you.
Aw...I wanted to talk about the ballet.
Aw...I wanted to talk about the ballet.
Same here. I was thinking, wow, ok, Swan Lake, great thread topic [Flower]
Yes, No, Yes, No...nice how that works out.
TEAMRICO
10-04-2014, 07:53
Ballot?................removes TuTu. awwwwwe.
I'd like more info about this casino. I plan to vote no, because the Constitution probably shouldn't be changed to get it, and certainly not by an out of state entity. Also for the reasons already mentioned.
buffalobo
10-04-2014, 08:24
No on the amendments, not every thing needs to be part of the state constitution.
Prop 104 - yes
Prop 105 - undecided still.
Great-Kazoo
10-04-2014, 12:22
Talk about it.
Amendment 64: Definition of person and child NO
Amendment 68: Horse racetrack casino gambling NO
Prop 104: School Board meeting requirements YES
Prop 105: Labeling of GMO foods NO This effects the small grower.
I will start.
Amendment 64: No, even if i cared its not the right way to go about it.
Amendment 68: No, i do not care if people gamble but a promise of money to education never works out. It always goes to the general fund and that is the last thing i want.
Prop 104: Yes, public is public.
Prop 105: Yes, only because it is a thorn in the back of companies that get away with trespassing to test others fields, disregard the constitution under a SCOTUS ruling and litigate against farmers that did nothing wrong but do it the way they always have for generations. I do not hate GMO foods but i hate the way the companies that make it happen are above the law.
I haven't made up my mind yet on the others, but I'm voting yes on the gmo labeling
No -
Yes - I don't care where the money is promised to go. I have no problem with people gambling, and would rather have people come to Denver instead of Vegas to piss away their cash. Don't care that it's a Rhode island company, as opposed to Nevada or other state companies currently operating in the small towns.
Yes - all local government meeting should be open to the public.
No - most of this is in conflict with current labeling laws.
Yes - I don't care where the money is promised to go. I have no problem with people gambling, and would rather have people come to Denver instead of Vegas to piss away their cash. Don't care that it's a Rhode island company, as opposed to Nevada or other state companies currently operating in the small towns.
I agree with you on most of this, but it doesn't bother you to have an out of state entity changing the Colorado Constitution?
I agree with you on most of this, but it doesn't bother you to have an out of state entity changing the Colorado Constitution?
This is my only hang up about it, not the out of state thing, but why an amendment? If this was a local prop for us in Arapahoe County, I'd be all for it, the cash can go statewide for K-12 as planned. But why should people in Durango be voting on whether to allow gambling in a place that's about 1.5 miles from my house but hundreds of miles from theirs? When the other two places are ready to start building theirs let them have their own referendum.
GilpinGuy
10-04-2014, 17:19
For 68, it's kind of ballsy for an out of state company to ask for our constitution to be changed so they can open a casino - and nobody else will be allowed to. Gigantic balls.
Plus billions have been invested in the 3 casino towns with the understanding that gaming won't be allowed elsewhere. Kinda f-ed up to go back on that.
But it IS all for the children (again).
GunsRBadMMMMKay
10-04-2014, 17:26
I told myself I wasn't going to bother voting this year......then I backslid and went ahead and registered. And I got to say, I am more then a little disappointed that this is all we are voting on this year.
It is an amendment because the constitution says where gambling is allowed. To add more places, an amendment needs to pass.
And so what if private money was dumped in developing 3 towns. Life isn't fair, so why should those 3 towns and their casinos have a monopoly on gambling? They are the one footing the ads opposing this new site and 1 more sites included in the amendment.
I would think if it were easier to get to aurora than the exiting places, more revenue and taxes would be raised.
I find it hard to believe that most people here don't want to know if they are eating GMO food?
Just got to shake my head.......
Great-Kazoo
10-04-2014, 21:09
It is an amendment because the constitution says where gambling is allowed. To add more places, an amendment needs to pass.
And so what if private money was dumped in developing 3 towns. Life isn't fair, so why should those 3 towns and their casinos have a monopoly on gambling? They are the one footing the ads opposing this new site and 1 more sites included in the amendment.
I would think if it were easier to get to aurora than the exiting places, more revenue and taxes would be raised.
That's what they are gambling on.
An amendment is virtually impossibly to remove from law books once voted on. An ballot measure is. It's one of the reasons 66? the school tax measure failed.
You put a casino in the metro area the central city , blackhawk area would fold within 6 months. is one casino (that cannot be shut down) worth those many jobs, not to mention the areas secondary economy.
I'm voting NO because there should be No new taxes with the implication it's for schools, especially as an amendment.
Great-Kazoo
10-04-2014, 21:13
I find it hard to believe that most people here don't want to know if they are eating GMO food?
Just got to shake my head.......
Unless you grow every thing at home, you'll never know. That label / law is for items grown here. It has no bearing on food items imported. If you read labels when you shop, little is grown in the USA. Forget about fish.
The amount of folks who don't look where an item is from, IMO, is staggering. I challenge everyone to buy fruits & veggies that are locally grown , from now till march. Figure 50-85% of said items are from central & south American areas. The last bell peppers i saw were tagged Holland. Those are approx. 1 week old once they hit the shelves, locally.
Based upon your location and the 3-4 choices you / i have to shop. Take 2 carts as you browse. Cart 1 is what you normally buy. Cart 2 will be items from cart 1 Grown in the USA, NOT packages in, but grown here. Cart 2 is going to be sparse. If it's not USA grown we pass. For dries spices, it's from Mexico. If not your choices are China and or Indonesia.
Even Whole Foods gets their products from overseas.
SO....after a long winded post is why i'll vote NO on GMO
Stevensje
10-04-2014, 21:31
I agree with you on most of this, but it doesn't bother you to have an out of state entity changing the Colorado Constitution?
No -
Yes - I don't care where the money is promised to go. I have no problem with people gambling, and would rather have people come to Denver instead of Vegas to piss away their cash. Don't care that it's a Rhode island company, as opposed to Nevada or other state companies currently operating in the small towns.
Yes - all local government meeting should be open to the public.
No - most of this is in conflict with current labeling laws.
Unfortunatly our freggin state is fussed up....We are we teaching our kids it's ok to gambling and Smoke weed, because it's for the schools.... Imagine the Drinking and driving from this and the type of people these constitutional changes will attract. About time to say see you f---in later Colorado.
You put a casino in the metro area the central city , blackhawk area would fold within 6 months. is one casino (that cannot be shut down) worth those many jobs, not to mention the areas secondary economy.
Yes. Those cities are now protected by the constitution because it limits casinos to these three towns. This new amendment would allow 3 more locations, Aurora and I if I recall correctly, Pueblo and Durango. The protected casinos in those town would have to get creative to keep and lure new customers. It is also my understanding that gambling is already allowed at the proposed site via off site track betting. I see no problem allowing more.
I would prefer that the amendment removed the restriction on where casinos could be operated. I hate government protected enterprises, which the casinos in Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek now enjoy. Let the free market decide the fate of businesses and eventually those towns. They were dead for a reason before the casinos.
As for the taxes, I will not pay them, only those who want to gamble. Hopefully plenty of tourists on their way to or from the ski slopes. Its not a forced tax, like a sales tax or property tax increase, its an elective tax on a non-essential entertainment activity.
GilpinGuy
10-04-2014, 22:30
Yes. Those cities are now protected by the constitution because it limits casinos to these three towns.
Gaming originally passed BECAUSE it was limited to those three towns. Voters didn't want it all over the place. That was one of the sticking points of getting it passed in the first place.
Getting gaming elsewhere failed twice before. Hopefully, it will again. And in the interest of full disclosure, yeah, I have a dog in this fight. I live near and work in Black Hawk. This passes and lots of people up here get hurt.
GilpinGuy
10-04-2014, 22:45
Yes. Those cities are now protected by the constitution because it limits casinos to these three towns. This new amendment would allow 3 more locations, Aurora and I if I recall correctly, Pueblo and Durango. The protected casinos in those town would have to get creative to keep and lure new customers. It is also my understanding that gambling is already allowed at the proposed site via off site track betting. I see no problem allowing more.
I would prefer that the amendment removed the restriction on where casinos could be operated. I hate government protected enterprises, which the casinos in Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek now enjoy. Let the free market decide the fate of businesses and eventually those towns. They were dead for a reason before the casinos.
As for the taxes, I will not pay them, only those who want to gamble. Hopefully plenty of tourists on their way to or from the ski slopes. Its not a forced tax, like a sales tax or property tax increase, its an elective tax on a non-essential entertainment activity.
Ideally, this would be great. But the law was passed 20+ years ago and here we are. The voters approved what we have now. And 68 doesn't promote "free market" anything. It allows ONE corporation to operate a casino in the Denver metro area (plus the other two areas after 5 years operating as a race track), and creates a monopoly via the constitution. The opposite of free market.
It is okay to gamble and smoke weed. It's damn annoying that everything seems to be tied to funding schools though. I feel like hardly any of that money actually ever makes it into the actual schools.
kidicarus13
10-05-2014, 00:05
It is okay to gamble and smoke weed. It's damn annoying that everything seems to be tied to funding schools though. I feel like hardly any of that money actually ever makes it into the actual schools.
Ya but it's cool to tell your friends and neighbors that you voted for the "school levy".
GilpinGuy
10-05-2014, 00:06
It is okay to gamble and smoke weed. It's damn annoying that everything seems to be tied to funding schools though. I feel like hardly any of that money actually ever makes it into the actual schools.
Next we'll have "Shall the constitution of CO allow XYZ Company, and ONLY XYZ Company, to produce and sell 30 round ammunition magazine clips in Denver, Pueblo and Mesa County only? X% of revenue will go to fund public schools."
It is okay to gamble and smoke weed. It's damn annoying that everything seems to be tied to funding schools though. I feel like hardly any of that money actually ever makes it into the actual schools.
This is what frustrates me about these issues, the people writing them KNOW they will not pass, so they say it is for the children and people vote for it. If they wrote a law taxing guns stores an additional 10% per year, but the first 2% of the first 4% goes to schools people would vote for it since they wont do the math or think it through. They just see one thing, "its for schools", Rhode Island saw it worked for pot smoking and is just using the same tactic.
I personally will vote no on it, I am not in favor of giving the state government more money they will misuse.
I personally will vote no on it, I am not in favor of giving the state government more money they will misuse.
That's pretty much where I'm at. I automatically assume that if funding schools is involved, there is something wrong with what is being voted on.
3beansalad
10-05-2014, 08:34
While I support raising money for public education when needed, the past has proven more money isn't fixing the educational problem in the USA. We as a society have been throwing money at schools for decades, and the education our children receive isn't rising with the influx of cash. Instead of smarter kids, we get common core curriculum. Enough is enough. It's time to change the system not the funding. And the system will not change if we keep supporting it as is.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Many years ago Ca tried this education funding thing if voters approved the state lottery. They showed us all the $$ the schools would be getting and it sounded great. After it passed, no extra $$ was to be found as they just moved the regular school budget to other stuff and replaced it with the same amount of lottery funds. I dont think 68 is gonna do what many think it will.
67 - NO; this is just another futile attempt to end-run Roe v Wade, as abhorrent as abortion is abortion is the law of the land, let it go, the end
68 - NO; I think gambling ruined Blackhawk and Central City for everyone except the people who made their millions off it, those used to be neat towns, now I won't go near them.
Prop 104 - YES; anything involving public monies or policy needs to open to the public
GMO - NO; just what we need, more government meddling in business
Colorado Supreme Court
Monica M Marquez - appointed by Ritter - do not retain
Brian D. Boatright - appointed by Hickenlooper - do not retain
GilpinGuy
10-05-2014, 20:25
67 - 68 - NO; I think gambling ruined Blackhawk and Central City for everyone except the people who made their millions off it, those used to be neat towns too visit, now I won't go near them.
I'm glad to hear another NO here.
Black Hawk and Central City were neat, historic towns that folks drove through and said "Oh, neat!" before gaming. There was virtually no job opportunities to be had. BH and CC were almost literally ghost towns. Gilpin County was one of the poorest and saddest counties in CO before gaming was passed. Now, not so much.
I never went to Cripple Creek before gaming passed, so I have no clue about down there. I assume it was a similar situation.
ETA: I guess the moral to my story is that many people benefited from gaming up here, not just the "millionaire" owners.
I'm glad to hear another NO here.
Black Hawk and Central City were neat, historic towns that folks drove through and said "Oh, neat!" before gaming. There was virtually no job opportunities to be had. BH and CC were almost literally ghost towns. Gilpin County was one of the poorest and saddest counties in CO before gaming was passed. Now, not so much.
I never went to Cripple Creek before gaming passed, so I have no clue about down there. I assume it was a similar situation.
ETA: I guess the moral to my story is that many people benefited from gaming up here, not just the "millionaire" owners.
Yeah, I understand that too but I miss those old towns.
Great-Kazoo
10-05-2014, 22:23
Yeah, I understand that too but I miss those old towns.
mid week mc riding up to CC & bH for some bar /beverage hopping.
Slapps74
10-05-2014, 23:01
I'm really tired of hearing, it's for the children crap. The schools will see little to none of that money. My votes will be no, no, yes, no.
67 - NO; this is just another futile attempt to end-run Roe v Wade, as abhorrent as abortion is abortion is the law of the land, let it go, the end
68 - NO; I think gambling ruined Blackhawk and Central City for everyone except the people who made their millions off it, those used to be neat towns, now I won't go near them.
Prop 104 - YES; anything involving public monies or policy needs to open to the public
GMO - NO; just what we need, more government meddling in business
Colorado Supreme Court
Monica M Marquez - appointed by Ritter - do not retain
Brian D. Boatright - appointed by Hickenlooper - do not retain
Thank you for adding the judges to the discussion, i normally do not vote on them out of pure laziness to research them.
As for amendment 68 the reason why the horse track was voted on in the first place was a promise to give the money to the school system, almost none of the money has made it there. If they had written it in the amendment that most, if not all, of the money has to go to the school system i would view it in a more positive light and if it said it would give all the money back to Colorado legal and tax paying citizens i would be knocking door to door for it. If amendment 64 said it gave the money back to tax payers in the state we would all be rich, talk about an economy boost.
I find it hard to believe that most people here don't want to know if they are eating GMO food?
Just got to shake my head.......
If it says it on the package already that is all you need to know. Because it is a semi free market that is one piece of advertising almost everyone that makes a GMO free product already labels that way. The only reason i want to vote yes on it is because the SCOTUS has made GMO company's above the law and it is a thorn in their backs.
mcantar18c
10-06-2014, 05:17
As for the taxes, I will not pay them, only those who want to gamble. Hopefully plenty of tourists on their way to or from the ski slopes. Its not a forced tax, like a sales tax or property tax increase, its an elective tax on a non-essential entertainment activity.
So it's ok to put a sin tax on ammo then right? Or maybe put heavy taxes on ranges, they take up so much space and they're so noisy.
It only affects this who choose to engage in a non-essential activity, won't affect ME at all.
Or hey, let's ban those evil black assaulting guns with their high capacitor clips. Completely unnecessary. If you need that much to drop a deer you shouldn't be hunting, I do just fine with my granddaddy's .30-06. I say we ban them, it won't affect ME none just the people that choose to mess with them. It's fer da childrens!
If that's your line of thinking, sorry but you're just as bad as the libs. Go away.
Bailey Guns
10-06-2014, 08:27
I find it hard to believe that most people here don't want to know if they are eating GMO food?
Just got to shake my head.......
Really? I find it harder to believe some people say they weren't going to bother voting this year. Talk about things that make you shake your head...
Zundfolge
10-06-2014, 08:51
Amendment 64: Definition of person and child
Yes. It's going to fail, but I want to thumb my nose at the child death cult that Feminism and leftism have become.
Amendment 68: Horse racetrack casino gambling
No. It doesn't matter what the details are, we shouldn't amend Constitutions for specific businesses or industries. That's what the rest of the code is for. I would gladly support this if it wasn't altering the state Constitution.
Prop 104: School Board meeting requirements
Yes. as has been stated a dozen times, Public is public.
Prop 105: Labeling of GMO foods
No. This is going to sound ungodly rude but I don't care. 99.999% of the anti-GMO hysteria is outright stupidity driven by leftist hatred of Western Civilization, Capitalism, Technology and built on a foundation of Critical Theory of Marxism. Creating a costly and confusing labeling scheme designed not to inform the public, but to harm business is a big part of why this country is in such a mess. I know there are some here that think GMOs are the most dangerous thing since sliced gulten and Monsanto is the devil but I think y'all are just silly and all this law will do is harm Colorado farmers.
El Paso County Question 1A to keep the $2 million the county over collected in taxes that is supposed to be refunded under TABOR to fund parks:
No. I'm sick of the state ignoring TABOR and finding pretexts to over tax us and then keep the proceeds. I'm all for taking good care of the parks, but dammit stop wasting money in other areas and stop taking more than you're due.
[QUOTE=Rabid;1734585]Talk about it.
Amendment 64: Definition of person and child
This should be Amendment 67: It specifically addresses only the criminal code. See Brady Project as it relates to Heather Surovik and the drunk who hit her. I am inclined to vote yes on this one, and I rarely vote yes on constitutional changes.
Amendment 68: Horse racetrack casino gambling
Doesn't matter if I agree or don't agree; this shouldn't be in the state constitution.
Prop 104: School Board meeting requirements
Don't care: although I am biased with a complete disgust in public education.
Prop 105: Labeling of GMO foods
No: it is interstate commerce and should follow federal regs.
Zundfolge
10-06-2014, 13:35
Foxtrot for Governor!
[panic]
Prop 105: Labeling of GMO foods
No. This is going to sound ungodly rude but I don't care. 99.999% of the anti-GMO hysteria is outright stupidity driven by leftist hatred of Western Civilization, Capitalism, Technology and built on a foundation of Critical Theory of Marxism. Creating a costly and confusing labeling scheme designed not to inform the public, but to harm business is a big part of why this country is in such a mess. I know there are some here that think GMOs are the most dangerous thing since sliced gulten and Monsanto is the devil but I think y'all are just silly and all this law will do is harm Colorado farmers.
.
Hey, if you want to eat GMO, be my guest.. I'd just like to know if I'm eating it.
And I think there is a reason that countries around the world are banning more and more GMO crops. This amendment doesn't even ban them.. Just makes them label it..
Its not just a bunch of leftists that think fucking with the genetic code of the world should be held with skepticism.
Just look at these juicy rats!!! Tumors and all. Just feed them a little GMO and you too can have a nice plump cancer ridden rat!!!!
http://eyeofvigilance.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/StudyFindsGeneticallyModifiedCornCausesTumorsinRat s.jpg
Zundfolge
10-06-2014, 17:07
Hey, if you want to eat GMO, be my guest.. I'd just like to know if I'm eating it.
And I think there is a reason that countries around the world are banning more and more GMO crops. This amendment doesn't even ban them.. Just makes them label it..
Well 105 won't do that.
All it will do is create confusion in the market place, give people inaccurate and confusing information and harm Colorado farmers and food producers (that last bit is what its designed to do ... harm "evil" capitalists farmers who should be producing organic food for free 'cause communism).
And exactly what will that "confusion" be???
ColoFarmer
10-06-2014, 17:18
And exactly what will that "confusion" be???
The only thing you will see if it passes is that 99% of food will be labeled "may contain gmo's" or something along those lines... The only way to do non-gmo is to do like organic food, make it a niche, specialty (higher priced) market.
Rather than retype everything, here's my farm's facebook page. Top post right now is my thoughts on the Prop 105...
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Frankes-Farm-Raised-Pork/409152315787880
Anyone who tells you GMO's are dangerous and causing problems is lying (either knowingly or unknowingly spreading a lie). The truth is GMO's make food production safer. I grew up around the chemicals that used to be needed to control pests and weeds pre-GMO's. They are NOT nice stuff, but I guess the other option is to produce less food and a) let some people starve and b) increase food costs significantly.
The only thing you will see if it passes is that 99% of food will be labeled "may contain gmo's" or something along those lines... The only way to do non-gmo is to do like organic food, make it a niche, specialty (higher priced) market.
Hmmm.... Doesn't say that in the prop. GMO food will be labeled, "Produced With Genetic Engineering" Maybe I just don't know how to read????
http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Mandatory_Labeling_of_GMOs_Initiative,_Pr oposition_105_%282014%29
Rather than retype everything, here's my farm's facebook page. Top post right now is my thoughts on the Prop 105...
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Frankes-Farm-Raised-Pork/409152315787880
Anyone who tells you GMO's are dangerous and causing problems is lying (either knowingly or unknowingly spreading a lie). The truth is GMO's make food production safer. I grew up around the chemicals that used to be needed to control pests and weeds pre-GMO's. They are NOT nice stuff, but I guess the other option is to produce less food and a) let some people starve and b) increase food costs significantly.
Well that option may fuck up the genetic code of this planet, but hey, who cares.. You and Monsanto just made a little more money.
By the way. It exempts products from animals that have been fed GMO, from being labeled..
Personally I think I have the right to know if the corn I'm eating is genetically modified with Bt Delta Endotoxin.
I know, I know... I must be CRAZY to want to know.....
Instead of creating a statewide label that is in contradiction to the federal labeling process, the people that don't want to worry about GMO in their food should just buy food that doesn't contain GMO. There are grocery chains and products that cater to these people. Otherwise just expect that most of the commercial food supply has some element of GMO. This is another instance of regulatory nonsense in response to people pushing their agenda on others.
So far I'm
Amendment 67 - Nay
Amednment 68 - Undecided
Prop 104 - Yay
Prop 105 - Nay
I'd be fine with labeling GMOs if people weren't so stupid and uneducatedly opinionated about them.
Instead of creating a statewide label that is in contradiction to the federal labeling process, the people that don't want to worry about GMO in their food should just buy food that doesn't contain GMO. There are grocery chains and products that cater to these people. Otherwise just expect that most of the commercial food supply has some element of GMO. This is another instance of regulatory nonsense in response to people pushing their agenda on others.
Contradiction?????
Are you really serious??????
Putting a label that says it's GMO is somehow going to mess up the federal labeling process??? And I'm sure most of the people here that are against GMO labeling also bitch about the federal bureaucracies over reach with other aspects, but when a state decides to do it. "OH NO!!!! YOU CAN'T INTERFERE WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY!!!! "
You guys are pro 10th amendment except when your not.
Seriously guys....
Stop with the ridiculous arguments...
I just want to know what the hell I'm eating when I buy it at the local grocery store. That's not really a huge demand...
If you already believe GMO to be bad for you, why do you need further intervention from the government to tell you what you already know?
Contradiction?????
Are you really serious??????
Putting a label that says it's GMO is somehow going to mess up the federal labeling process??? And I'm sure most of the people here that are against GMO labeling also bitch about the federal bureaucracies over reach with other aspects, but when a state decides to do it. "OH NO!!!! YOU CAN'T INTERFERE WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY!!!! "
You guys are pro 10th amendment except when your not.
Seriously guys....
Stop with the ridiculous arguments...
I just want to know what the hell I'm eating when I buy it at the local grocery store. That's not really a huge demand...
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Helme_MLR.pdf
Specifically, look at page 359 and starting on 367. If this gets passed, it will likely end up in court, cost tax payer money, and get thrown out.
If you already believe GMO to be bad for you, why do you need further intervention from the government to tell you what you already know?
Ummmmmm...... well. I currently don't know if I'm eating gmo or not.
And for the record I believe if there should be government intervention it should be at the state and local levels.
It's you guys that are worried about the federal interventions
I'm not worried about the Fed stuff. I hear what you're saying, and haven't really formed an opinion either way. I'd say that right now, if you want to know what is in something, there is nothing that is restricting you from finding out that information. At least nothing that will change after this law.
Not exactly... I can look at a label and all it will tell is the ingredients. It doesn't say whether its gmo or not.
All it really takes is an addition to the existing label that's already there.
That's really not that much to ask for...
I'm not worried about the Fed stuff. I hear what you're saying, and haven't really formed an opinion either way. I'd say that right now, if you want to know what is in something, there is nothing that is restricting you from finding out that information. At least nothing that will change after this law.
It's semantics at this point. The info is out there, you just want it to be located on the product so you can get the info at the point of purchase, rather than taking the time to pre-investigate everything. I completely understand what you want and why. I lean toward the free market idea that the producers who sells non-GMO stuff make sure to point it out.
Kind of like how we don't need a law that Vegans have to wear a t-shirt declaring that they are a Vegan, because that is already the first thing out of their damn mouths anyway. :p
Are you suggesting that I call every food producer that I may buy from at the store and ask if they use gmo?
Depends on how badly you want the info. You're really asking that a law be made that puts the info you seek in the location that you want. The info is out there already. Now that I think about it, someone probably HAS already called every producer and asked, so there is probably a list out there some where. If not, I bet that creating one and putting it online would make for a pretty popular website.
I guess we can do away with all labels on food and medications...... since you can find that info elsewhere and all......
Remember the time (every other year) there was panic buying of guns and supplies, and some retailers starting raising prices much higher, and much faster than others? A lot of people felt very strongly about those retailers, and wanted to know who they were, so they could avoid them. Being that our community really cared about that issue, we banded together to create a list of retailers that we didn't want to do business with.
I know you know all this, and I'm not trying to come across condescending or anything. I'm trying to debate a topic as logically and politely as I can by giving alternatives to the law.
I'm going to ignore that analogy due to it not relating to anything we're talking about and I want you to address the one I made in my last post.
Should we do away with food and medication labels, since we can find the information elsewhere?
mcantar18c
10-06-2014, 20:15
I'm going to ignore that analogy due to it not relating to anything we're talking about and I want you to address the one I made in my last post.
Should we do away with food and medication labels, since we can find the information elsewhere?
The current labels on food and medicine say what ingredients are in what you're buying. Not what ingredients are in the ingredients of what you're buying.
Are you in favor of forcing meat suppliers to list everything they feed the cow/pig/etc. and how it was killed on their package?
No. I'm advocating for this prop that exempts animals.
"Hey, CO has special laws on firearms."
"Screw 'em, they're not worth the hassle. We'll sell to everyone else without changing our practices."
-then-
Replace "laws on firearms" with "food labeling laws".
Great-Kazoo
10-06-2014, 20:47
No. I'm advocating for this prop that exempts animals.
Doesn't do or force anyone from OOS to label. Once again, till we bring back US mfg fruits, vegetables, juices etc. Railing about GMO labeling when we are over whelmed with chinese imported foods, is pointless.
ColoFarmer
10-06-2014, 21:04
By the way. It exempts products from animals that have been fed GMO, from being labeled..
Personally I think I have the right to know if the corn I'm eating is genetically modified with Bt Delta Endotoxin.
I know, I know... I must be CRAZY to want to know.....
I'm well aware of what it says, I'm just making sure you understand nothing will change but there will be a label on everything but organic foods. If you are eating anything with corn or soy in it, you are eating gmo's, most corn and soy is because it's the safest way to raise corn and soybeans, while having yields that will feed the world.
I commend you for wanting to know what you eat. I'll assume you buy local and direct from farmers or grow your own as much as possible. Ask the farmers who grow your food their thoughts. Keep in mind, I raise primarily natural pigs, and have test fed some non-gmo feed, because some people will pay insane prices for something that is the same protein and taste and safety as conventional fed pigs... People like you are my target consumer. Prop105 will push some/most of that cost to ALL consumers. Don't want gmo products? Great, buy non-gmo, but you should pay the premium for that, don't force everyone else to pay for your preference. That's why I will vote no and tell people they should too...
I'm going to ignore that analogy due to it not relating to anything we're talking about and I want you to address the one I made in my last post.
Should we do away with food and medication labels, since we can find the information elsewhere?
No we should not do away with food and medication labels. I would actually prefer it if producers would put onto the label if the foods were GMO or not. I'm leery of making them do it. If the producers were smart, they would launch pro-GMO campaigns and proudly display the GMO label as a feature, more than a warning.
I'm well aware of what it says, I'm just making sure you understand nothing will change but there will be a label on everything but organic foods. If you are eating anything with corn or soy in it, you are eating gmo's, most corn and soy is because it's the safest way to raise corn and soybeans, while having yields that will feed the world.
I commend you for wanting to know what you eat. I'll assume you buy local and direct from farmers or grow your own as much as possible. Ask the farmers who grow your food their thoughts. Keep in mind, I raise primarily natural pigs, and have test fed some non-gmo feed, because some people will pay insane prices for something that is the same protein and taste and safety as conventional fed pigs... People like you are my target consumer. Prop105 will push some/most of that cost to ALL consumers. Don't want gmo products? Great, buy non-gmo, but you should pay the premium for that, don't force everyone else to pay for your preference. That's why I will vote no and tell people they should too...
Bullshit... There are a lot of products that are not GMO and are also not organic.
Believe it or not, I 'm not a total freak about GMO. I eat it and my family eats it everytime we cook a ear of corn on the grill. I understand that. There are plenty of products that I know are most likely GMO. I would just prefer to know if I'm eating it so I can make the proper choice.
This idea that putting a freaking sticker on something is going to make everything raise in cost iis just fear mongering IMHO. Its just a chemical corp...errr I mean food industry giant monsanto that is just trying to protect their monopoly.
I've heard some pretty ridiculous arguments in this thread, so far..
Its going to contradict the federal laws.
Its going to drive up prices.
Its going to cause confusion
Its going just more bureauracry
You should check for GMO ingredients in all your own food.
The chinese don't have to label their products.
All for something that can be added to the EXISTING label.
All I want is to know if I'm eating a genetically modified organism. Its not that ridiculous of a request!
Oh the humanity
No we should not do away with food and medication labels. I would actually prefer it if producers would put onto the label if the foods were GMO or not. I'm leery of making them do it. If the producers were smart, they would launch pro-GMO campaigns and proudly display the GMO label as a feature, more than a warning.
I heard cherrios have said they are no longer/ or will not use GMO in their product.
Great-Kazoo
10-06-2014, 22:46
I heard cherrios have said they are no longer/ or will not use GMO in their product.
What are they going to call them once the GMO's are out, Cheeries?
Aloha_Shooter
10-07-2014, 00:01
Amendment 64: I don't know yet but I generally vote no on constitutional amendments unless I'm solidly convinced to go for them. Don't muck with the constitution, federal or state, unless you have a 100% solid iron-clad case for the change.
Amendment 68: No. The last thing this state needs is another mega-casino much less 3. I'm not convinced we have a funding problem with education so much as a spending and priorities problem. There's something about the vapid commercials they aired in favor of 68 that reinforces my opinion to vote against it.
Proposition 104: Probably yes.
Proposition 105: No. Again, legislation based on fear-mongering is usually a bad idea. The fact most of the anti-GMO protesters are frequently the same clueless Obamorons who support Occupy Wall Street/Denver/S--t and OFA, scream about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change, and think Pelosi and Reid make sense just makes me less interested in this proposition.
Aloha_Shooter
10-07-2014, 00:07
You should check for GMO ingredients in all your own food.
The chinese don't have too.
No, they don't have to worry about GMO ingredients in their food when they're inserting melamine into the food products to fake out the tests for protein content or using cardboard in place of meat in their char siu bao (sweet roast pork buns). The Chicoms are the last people on the planet we should be emulating when it comes to food safety.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying, judging by how you quoted me. I'm not advocating for anything that the chicoms are doing
No, they don't have to worry about GMO ingredients in their food when they're inserting melamine into the food products to fake out the tests for protein content or using cardboard in place of meat in their char siu bao (sweet roast pork buns). The Chicoms are the last people on the planet we should be emulating when it comes to food safety.
Why Dont you grow and kill your own food if you are that worried about it. Or find a local farmer who will sell to you. A .gov label doesn't mean shit. His many things out there do you see with the " this product contains something known to cause cancer in the state of California"...yet...you still buy it or use it because it is on everything and you are numb to it.
If you believe a label will tell you the truth, I am selling acreage on mars for a great price.
Great-Kazoo
10-07-2014, 08:18
Why Dont you grow and kill your own food if you are that worried about it. Or find a local farmer who will sell to you. A .gov label doesn't mean shit. His many things out there do you see with the " this product contains something known to cause cancer in the state of California"...yet...you still buy it or use it because it is on everything and you are numb to it.
If you believe a label will tell you the truth, I am selling acreage on mars for a great price.
water front or scenic view of earth?
Rucker61
10-07-2014, 08:31
I'm well aware of what it says, I'm just making sure you understand nothing will change but there will be a label on everything but organic foods. If you are eating anything with corn or soy in it, you are eating gmo's, most corn and soy is because it's the safest way to raise corn and soybeans, while having yields that will feed the world.
I commend you for wanting to know what you eat. I'll assume you buy local and direct from farmers or grow your own as much as possible. Ask the farmers who grow your food their thoughts. Keep in mind, I raise primarily natural pigs, and have test fed some non-gmo feed, because some people will pay insane prices for something that is the same protein and taste and safety as conventional fed pigs...
"And when you got your six pieces, you gotta get rid of them, because it's no good leaving it in the deep freeze for your mum to discover, now is it? Then I hear the best thing to do is feed them to pigs. You got to starve the pigs for a few days, then the sight of a chopped-up body will look like curry to a pisshead. You gotta shave the heads of your victims, and pull the teeth out for the sake of the piggies' digestion. You could do this afterwards, of course, but you don't want to go sievin' through pig shit, now do you? They will go through bone like butter. You need at least sixteen pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs 200 pounds in about eight minutes. That means that a single pig can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a pig"."
rock_castle
10-07-2014, 20:24
I generally vote no on all ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments on principle. We have a duly elected legislature to pass laws. I think it should be very difficult to get these things on the ballot.
That said, I am leaning towards voting YES on 68 for this reason: my wife and I like to gamble and have been going to Black Hawk just about every week for many years. A lot of people including us feel like the BH casinos have been reducing their payouts these past few years. A lot of people feel like it is getting harder and harder to win up there. I think they need more competition in order to keep them on the right path. Competition will hopefully stop the BH casinos from gouging their customers. That's just my personal opinion.
I voted for the first amendment to change Colorado casinos, despite my much smarter friend using this same argument about changing the constitution. I voted for it for the same reason as above.
Great-Kazoo
10-07-2014, 21:14
I was before it, against when i was unsure of it
I was before it, against when i was unsure of it
Makes perfect sense.
I liked you before you were cool and wise Jim.
colorider
10-08-2014, 13:00
I remember when the Blackhawk, cc and cripple creek gambling started. Original laws had all kinds of stuff that is gone today. $5 max. Slots, poker and blackjack only. No buildings over 3 stories. Building must comply with the historic mining look. No free booze. Look where we are today. Sell the voters on the idea then change shit as it goes along. Not saying it's good or bad, just saying if it goes through then in 10 years it will be much different. Prob have slots in 7-11 stores.
I remember when the Blackhawk, cc and cripple creek gambling started. Original laws had all kinds of stuff that is gone today. $5 max. Slots, poker and blackjack only. No buildings over 3 stories. Building must comply with the historic mining look. No free booze. Look where we are today. Sell the voters on the idea then change shit as it goes along. Not saying it's good or bad, just saying if it goes through then in 10 years it will be much different. Prob have slots in 7-11 stores.
As long as the .gov gets its cut we can have dope and gambling. I'm just waiting for them to legalize hookers and blow.
Great-Kazoo
10-08-2014, 13:22
As long as the .gov gets its cut we can have dope and gambling. I'm just waiting for them to legalize hookers and blow.
Windy days are gonna blow, in ho town.
Yes on 64
No on 68
Yes on 104
Yes on 105
screagle2
10-30-2014, 20:24
Really? I find it harder to believe some people say they weren't going to bother voting this year. Talk about things that make you shake your head...
Hey, if you want to eat GMO, be my guest.. I'd just like to know if I'm eating it.
And I think there is a reason that countries around the world are banning more and more GMO crops. This amendment doesn't even ban them.. Just makes them label it..
Its not just a bunch of leftists that think fucking with the genetic code of the world should be held with skepticism.
Just look at these juicy rats!!! Tumors and all. Just feed them a little GMO and you too can have a nice plump cancer ridden rat!!!!
http://eyeofvigilance.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/StudyFindsGeneticallyModifiedCornCausesTumorsinRat s.jpg
it is obvious that you have no idea what can and cannot be classified as GMO
Noodles & Company proudly displays a sign that says their pasts is GMO free. Does that give you comfort, and if so, why?
Yup, this is a test .
milwaukeeshaker
10-31-2014, 09:29
No 64
No 68
Yes 104
No 105
Talk about it.
Amendment 64: Definition of person and child
Amendment 68: Horse racetrack casino gambling
Prop 104: School Board meeting requirements
Prop 105: Labeling of GMO foods
I will start.
Amendment 64: No, even if i cared its not the right way to go about it.
Amendment 68: No, i do not care if people gamble but a promise of money to education never works out. It always goes to the general fund and that is the last thing i want.
Prop 104: Yes, public is public.
Prop 105: Yes, only because it is a thorn in the back of companies that get away with trespassing to test others fields, disregard the constitution under a SCOTUS ruling and litigate against farmers that did nothing wrong but do it the way they always have for generations. I do not hate GMO foods but i hate the way the companies that make it happen are above the law.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.