What the hell, Wisconsin?

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
User avatar
FredS
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Posts: 19632
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: NoCo (Northern Colorado)

Re: Seems to me

Post by FredS » Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:40 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:We all know TNLP's Parties are the best parties.
Epic, duuude. The stuff of legends.
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 16962
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Seems to me

Post by TNLawPiper » Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:58 pm

FredS wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:We all know TNLP's Parties are the best parties.
Epic, duuude. The stuff of legends.
:lol:

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16948
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:31 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:Come on, folks. This is not Egypt or Libya, and such a statement should offend anyone who understands what the Egyptians and Libyans were demonstrating against.
It should not offend anyone. This protesting stuff is global. An epidemic. Unproductive and dangerous...especially here, when there is nothing to support them acting this way.

Pay attention my friend or one day you will look around and think to yourself..."How did this happen?"
The protests in the Middle East are part of a revolution against authoritarian rulers. For better or for worse, those populations want democratic representation, which they don't have. Some of them want greater religious rule, and some of them simply want to have a say in their government. When we think about America's founding fathers doing it, we place our hands over our hearts and feel the patriotism welling up inside of us, so it's hypocritical for us to say that they don't deserve democracy or that they're wrong for fighting for it.

In Wisconsin, they're publicly advocating for their beliefs in a way that is meant to convey the actual scope of the effects of the legislation. That is what protests are meant to do. Protesting via the ballot box is often ineffective and untimely, so they are making their voices heard in the public square. Again, there was no outrage about the protesting when the Tea Party was disrupting town hall meetings.

Conflating the two events belittles the struggle for democracy and human rights, and it evokes those feelings I have when someone calls President Obama a tyrant or equates our rights to that of the British Empire prior to the American revolution: "Should I <redacted_emoji> or :lol: ?"
As I stated, "One day you will look around and...."
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16948
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:33 pm

Roadmaster wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
The middle class IS dying, but it is not because of the rich. It's because of the Nanny State with the poor.
The nanny state doesn't appear to be hurting the rich who are on top who is effective in driving a wedge between the middle class. As long as we are looking at each other we are not watching them.
So, a person who works hard, invents something great or starts a successful business and becomes rich should be punished?

At the same time, someone who is lazy, dependant on the state, addicted to drugs, can't keep a job and has no marketable skills due to getting high in school and dropping out is rewarded with a bunch of free stuff.

I don't see how that makes sense. I also don't see how or why it is the Federals Governments place to provide these things or even regulate personal achievement.

Why should the first person support the second?
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Roadmaster
Ornery one-eyed tick farming weiner dog
Ornery one-eyed tick farming weiner dog
Posts: 12695
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: Missouri The Show-me State

Post by Roadmaster » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:22 pm

Kerdy wrote:So, a person who works hard, invents something great or starts a successful business and becomes rich should be punished?
They should pay a higher percent of their income. This will encourage them to reinvest in his company thereby creating jobs and wealth. History has proven this, see graph below.
Kerdy wrote:
At the same time, someone who is lazy, dependant on the state, addicted to drugs, can't keep a job and has no marketable skills due to getting high in school and dropping out is rewarded with a bunch of free stuff.
A sane able bodied person who just plain won’t do anything for himself shouldn’t receive any government help. I looked it up and all I could find that such a person was eligible would be about $200 a month in food stamps. There may be other things that I don’t know about. I agree with you this isn’t right.
Kerdy wrote:
I don't see how that makes sense. I also don't see how or why it is the Federals Governments place to provide these things or even regulate personal achievement.

Why should the first person support the second?
What about a young woman homeless not very bright no job or family who is pregnant? Sure she should not have got pregnant in the first place but lets say she did. If she has no means to take care or herself much less a baby what is she to do? Will the churches take in all such women? Some churches may help a few such women but not all of them. So should she have an abortion? I know your answer to that. What do you think the odd are she will have one legal or otherwise if she gets no help? What about disabled people? Mentally insane people? What about the people who get down temporally and need a little help until they can get on their feet?
Image
Rich Corinthian Leather

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16948
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:10 pm

Roadmaster wrote:
Kerdy wrote:So, a person who works hard, invents something great or starts a successful business and becomes rich should be punished?
They should pay a higher percent of their income. This will encourage them to reinvest in his company thereby creating jobs and wealth. History has proven this, see graph below.
Kerdy wrote:
At the same time, someone who is lazy, dependant on the state, addicted to drugs, can't keep a job and has no marketable skills due to getting high in school and dropping out is rewarded with a bunch of free stuff.
A sane able bodied person who just plain won’t do anything for himself shouldn’t receive any government help. I looked it up and all I could find that such a person was eligible would be about $200 a month in food stamps. There may be other things that I don’t know about. I agree with you this isn’t right.
Kerdy wrote:
I don't see how that makes sense. I also don't see how or why it is the Federals Governments place to provide these things or even regulate personal achievement.

Why should the first person support the second?
What about a young woman homeless not very bright no job or family who is pregnant? Sure she should not have got pregnant in the first place but lets say she did. If she has no means to take care or herself much less a baby what is she to do? Will the churches take in all such women? Some churches may help a few such women but not all of them. So should she have an abortion? I know your answer to that. What do you think the odd are she will have one legal or otherwise if she gets no help? What about disabled people? Mentally insane people? What about the people who get down temporally and need a little help until they can get on their feet?
Image
Well, you certainly have your opinion. Didn't answer the first question, agreed with the second and ignored American development in the beginning and posted a chart while going down the same touchy feely road abortionists use to support their ideology. What about "insert worse case scenario".
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Roadmaster
Ornery one-eyed tick farming weiner dog
Ornery one-eyed tick farming weiner dog
Posts: 12695
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: Missouri The Show-me State

Post by Roadmaster » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:58 pm

Kerdy wrote: Well, you certainly have your opinion. Didn't answer the first question, agreed with the second and ignored American development in the beginning and posted a chart while going down the same touchy feely road abortionists use to support their ideology. What about "insert worse case scenario".
I did answer your first question but I’ll re post it:
They should pay a higher percent of their income. This will encourage him to reinvest in his company thereby creating jobs and wealth. History has proven this, see graph below.
I also want to add I think Jesus agrees.
Luke 12:48
But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
If you have a problem with me using a worst case scenario why did you use one first?
As far as ‘going down the same touchy feely road abortionists use to support their ideology’ are you taking exception to the message because you don’t like the messenger?
Then what is your answer to a young homeless pregnant woman?
Rich Corinthian Leather

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 16962
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by TNLawPiper » Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:49 pm

Kerdy wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:Come on, folks. This is not Egypt or Libya, and such a statement should offend anyone who understands what the Egyptians and Libyans were demonstrating against.
It should not offend anyone. This protesting stuff is global. An epidemic. Unproductive and dangerous...especially here, when there is nothing to support them acting this way.

Pay attention my friend or one day you will look around and think to yourself..."How did this happen?"
The protests in the Middle East are part of a revolution against authoritarian rulers. For better or for worse, those populations want democratic representation, which they don't have. Some of them want greater religious rule, and some of them simply want to have a say in their government. When we think about America's founding fathers doing it, we place our hands over our hearts and feel the patriotism welling up inside of us, so it's hypocritical for us to say that they don't deserve democracy or that they're wrong for fighting for it.

In Wisconsin, they're publicly advocating for their beliefs in a way that is meant to convey the actual scope of the effects of the legislation. That is what protests are meant to do. Protesting via the ballot box is often ineffective and untimely, so they are making their voices heard in the public square. Again, there was no outrage about the protesting when the Tea Party was disrupting town hall meetings.

Conflating the two events belittles the struggle for democracy and human rights, and it evokes those feelings I have when someone calls President Obama a tyrant or equates our rights to that of the British Empire prior to the American revolution: "Should I <redacted_emoji> or :lol: ?"
As I stated, "One day you will look around and...."
Why? What is your point here? You don't like unions, and I understand that, but you're not responding to my post.

User avatar
Briarpatch
Usher
Usher
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Where ever I happen to be.

Re: Seems to me

Post by Briarpatch » Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:37 am

FredS wrote:
Roadmaster wrote:
Briarpatch wrote:Could it not be said that the Democrat state senators have abandoned their offices by refusing to participate?

Then I say appoint new ones and get on with the thing.

Walker is making a huge mistake by allowing this to drag on.
In your view would we be better off if had only one party the Repubican Party?
You didn't ask me RM, but let me take a stab at this one . . .

HELL YES we'd be better off if we only had the Republican party! :wink:
The fact is NOBODY rules me. I may consent to be governed but nobody will rule me.I am embarrassed that this wasn't my immediate knee-jerk reaction to the question.... :oops:
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. (Matthew Ch 16)


Anyone who resists this truth perishes."
-Saint Louis Marie de Montfort (1673-1716)

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16948
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:24 am

Roadmaster wrote:
Kerdy wrote: Well, you certainly have your opinion. Didn't answer the first question, agreed with the second and ignored American development in the beginning and posted a chart while going down the same touchy feely road abortionists use to support their ideology. What about "insert worse case scenario".
I did answer your first question but I’ll re post it:
They should pay a higher percent of their income. This will encourage him to reinvest in his company thereby creating jobs and wealth. History has proven this, see graph below.
I also want to add I think Jesus agrees.
Luke 12:48
But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
If you have a problem with me using a worst case scenario why did you use one first?
As far as ‘going down the same touchy feely road abortionists use to support their ideology’ are you taking exception to the message because you don’t like the messenger?
Then what is your answer to a young homeless pregnant woman?
No, you did not answer the first question. You simply stated your opinion, but did not explain adequately why. WHY should a rich person pay for a poor persons way through life? Is the poor person not capable of supporting himself? When did this change? People have always been able to work hard and support their families up until today. What changed?

We are talking government, not Christian charity. This government, our government, the US government was not designed, set up, or constructed in any such manner. As a matter of fact, the constitution goes the opposite direction. So, if a person wants to give, wonderful. If not, WHY should a rich person be forced to pay a higher tax rate (they already pay more taxes because they make more money) than someone else and support them when they can do it themself?

I don't recall using a worse case senario. The only thing I used is what I have seen everywhere. I grew up one block from the very people I spoke about in an apartment complex full of them. Brand new cars, but no job. I went to school with them. Living on food stamps, but sporting the latest fashions in clothing. My parents worked...hard. Their parents could also have should they have chosen, but they lived off my parents, and now my tax dollars. That isn't fair no matter how you look at it.

As far as the homeless pregnant girl. Welp, she knows what causes pregnancy. It isn't a secret, however, there has ALWAY been charity organizations out there to help these people and they have been very successful in doing so. Baby, should she decide she cant care for it, can be adopted. There are always alternate and proper avenues. The only thing is someone needs to stop feeling sorry for themselves and look for them.

If every person you know and meet refuses to care for you or help you, there may be a reason. It's a cold hard truth, but it's truth. It just may be you, not everyone else. I have never met a church that turned someone away when they needed help. If the church could nto help, they found someone who could or at least sent them in the right direction.

It is not the governments place to support us, it's our job to support ourselves. If someone else does a better job of that than I do, it is not proper for me to steal their hard earned money to pad my pockets. That's larceny, even if the US government does it.
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6267
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:45 am

Roadmaster wrote:
infidel wrote:
I get most of my information from Mish. I wasn't speaking specifically about the WI "problem" per se, but about the general "problem" of public yoonyuns throughout the US, and the defined-benefit pension systems being a significant factor in financial crises across the land.
A large part of the pension problem is the thieves on wall street who stole the pension money through junk bonds and the like.
No, the largest part of the problem is that these pensions guarantee upwards of 8% annual interest regardless of what the market is doing. And they guarantee significant percentages of salary for the rest of the retiree's life. And certain occupations are able to retire at very young ages, and often return to work immediately earning both a pension and a salary.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
FredS
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Posts: 19632
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: NoCo (Northern Colorado)

Post by FredS » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:19 pm

infidel wrote:
Roadmaster wrote:
infidel wrote:
I get most of my information from Mish. I wasn't speaking specifically about the WI "problem" per se, but about the general "problem" of public yoonyuns throughout the US, and the defined-benefit pension systems being a significant factor in financial crises across the land.
A large part of the pension problem is the thieves on wall street who stole the pension money through junk bonds and the like.
No, the largest part of the problem is that these pensions guarantee upwards of 8% annual interest regardless of what the market is doing. And they guarantee significant percentages of salary for the rest of the retiree's life. And certain occupations are able to retire at very young ages, and often return to work immediately earning both a pension and a salary.
Infi is right. Defined benefit pensions ("We'll pay you $600 a month, every month, from the time of your retirement until the time of your death.") put a great burden on the employer. Defined contribution plans ("We'll contribute $600 a month to your retirement account, every month until you retire.") are now the norm. I don't know of anyone not in a uni0n with defined benefit plans any more.
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

User avatar
Roadmaster
Ornery one-eyed tick farming weiner dog
Ornery one-eyed tick farming weiner dog
Posts: 12695
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: Missouri The Show-me State

Post by Roadmaster » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:50 pm

infidel wrote:
Roadmaster wrote:
infidel wrote:
I get most of my information from Mish. I wasn't speaking specifically about the WI "problem" per se, but about the general "problem" of public yoonyuns throughout the US, and the defined-benefit pension systems being a significant factor in financial crises across the land.
A large part of the pension problem is the thieves on wall street who stole the pension money through junk bonds and the like.
No, the largest part of the problem is that these pensions guarantee upwards of 8% annual interest regardless of what the market is doing. And they guarantee significant percentages of salary for the rest of the retiree's life. And certain occupations are able to retire at very young ages, and often return to work immediately earning both a pension and a salary.
I said 'large' not 'largest' there is a difference.
Rich Corinthian Leather

User avatar
Roadmaster
Ornery one-eyed tick farming weiner dog
Ornery one-eyed tick farming weiner dog
Posts: 12695
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: Missouri The Show-me State

Re: Seems to me

Post by Roadmaster » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:11 pm

Briarpatch wrote:
FredS wrote:
Roadmaster wrote:
Briarpatch wrote:Could it not be said that the Democrat state senators have abandoned their offices by refusing to participate?

Then I say appoint new ones and get on with the thing.

Walker is making a huge mistake by allowing this to drag on.
In your view would we be better off if had only one party the Repubican Party?
You didn't ask me RM, but let me take a stab at this one . . .

HELL YES we'd be better off if we only had the Republican party! :wink:
The fact is NOBODY rules me. I may consent to be governed but nobody will rule me.I am embarrassed that this wasn't my immediate knee-jerk reaction to the question.... :oops:
A one ton 4x4 Dully Diesel P/U with a gun rack and a McCain-Pal­in bumper sticker makes you a rugged individualist?
Rich Corinthian Leather

User avatar
Roadmaster
Ornery one-eyed tick farming weiner dog
Ornery one-eyed tick farming weiner dog
Posts: 12695
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: Missouri The Show-me State

Post by Roadmaster » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:24 pm

Kerdy wrote:
No, you did not answer the first question.
I answered it twice. I'm now going to send Lucky over to bite your ankles! :D
Rich Corinthian Leather

User avatar
Briarpatch
Usher
Usher
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Where ever I happen to be.

Re: Seems to me

Post by Briarpatch » Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:35 am

Roadmaster wrote:
Briarpatch wrote:
FredS wrote:
Roadmaster wrote:
Briarpatch wrote:Could it not be said that the Democrat state senators have abandoned their offices by refusing to participate?

Then I say appoint new ones and get on with the thing.

Walker is making a huge mistake by allowing this to drag on.
In your view would we be better off if had only one party the Repubican Party?
You didn't ask me RM, but let me take a stab at this one . . .

HELL YES we'd be better off if we only had the Republican party! :wink:
The fact is NOBODY rules me. I may consent to be governed but nobody will rule me.I am embarrassed that this wasn't my immediate knee-jerk reaction to the question.... :oops:
A one ton 4x4 Dully Diesel P/U with a gun rack and a McCain-Pal­in bumper sticker makes you a rugged individualist?

If you think so...yes. :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6267
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: What the hell, Wisconsin?

Post by infidel » Tue Apr 04, 2017 5:23 pm

http://www.irishcentral.com/culture/foo ... s-us-state
Under a 1970 law all butter sold in the state must be subjected to scrutiny by a panel, which recently ruled Kerrygold was not compliant. Their problem with Kerrygold’s products was that the cattle who produce the milk for the cheese and butter are grass fed, something the panel ruled was against state law.
I was going tell Wisconsin to EFF OFF and boycott Wisconsin butter, but I already buy only Kerrygold anyways! SUCK ON THAT, WISCONSIN! :cheese:
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
Sir Moose
President Jar-Jar Binks fan club: "Meesa tink he da best!" - Perpetually in Trouble
President Jar-Jar Binks fan club: "Meesa tink he da best!" - Perpetually in Trouble
Posts: 2605
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:17 am
Location: NW Washington
Contact:

Re: What the hell, Wisconsin?

Post by Sir Moose » Tue Apr 04, 2017 5:28 pm

infidel wrote:
Tue Apr 04, 2017 5:23 pm
http://www.irishcentral.com/culture/foo ... s-us-state
Under a 1970 law all butter sold in the state must be subjected to scrutiny by a panel, which recently ruled Kerrygold was not compliant. Their problem with Kerrygold’s products was that the cattle who produce the milk for the cheese and butter are grass fed, something the panel ruled was against state law.
I was going tell Wisconsin to EFF OFF and boycott Wisconsin butter, but I already buy only Kerrygold anyways! SUCK ON THAT, WISCONSIN! :cheese:
Image
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35996
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: What the hell, Wisconsin?

Post by Del » Tue Apr 04, 2017 6:33 pm

infidel wrote:
Tue Apr 04, 2017 5:23 pm
http://www.irishcentral.com/culture/foo ... s-us-state
Under a 1970 law all butter sold in the state must be subjected to scrutiny by a panel, which recently ruled Kerrygold was not compliant. Their problem with Kerrygold’s products was that the cattle who produce the milk for the cheese and butter are grass fed, something the panel ruled was against state law.
I was going tell Wisconsin to EFF OFF and boycott Wisconsin butter, but I already buy only Kerrygold anyways! SUCK ON THAT, WISCONSIN! :cheese:
Them corporate dairy distributors have an unholy lock on the state regulators.

We got laws against margarine.
http://whoonew.com/2014/07/strange-wisc ... tate-laws/

Folks used to smuggle margarine from Iowa. (Margarine is made from corn, and Iowa is very proud of their corn. And pigs.) So folks used to smuggle margarine into Wisconsin.
http://www.wisconsinlife.org/story/stat ... -smuggling

Now they are smuggling Kerrygold.
http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2017/ ... bacle.html

Don't get anyone talking about "raw milk" around here.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 20912
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Re: What the hell, Wisconsin?

Post by Thunktank » Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:28 pm

infidel wrote:
Tue Apr 04, 2017 5:23 pm
http://www.irishcentral.com/culture/foo ... s-us-state
Under a 1970 law all butter sold in the state must be subjected to scrutiny by a panel, which recently ruled Kerrygold was not compliant. Their problem with Kerrygold’s products was that the cattle who produce the milk for the cheese and butter are grass fed, something the panel ruled was against state law.
I was going tell Wisconsin to EFF OFF and boycott Wisconsin butter, but I already buy only Kerrygold anyways! SUCK ON THAT, WISCONSIN! :cheese:
That Kerrygold is expensive! Double the price of California made butter for me. I picked some butter up an hour ago and your post made me go looking for Kerrygold. Does it taste twice as good?
It’s almost believable, but I love it most of the time whether it’s true or not.

Post Reply