blaen99

iTrader: (6)

It's an article partly about the right politicizing religion, Viper.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

It's interesting that you mention this, as I just bought groceries at that store this afternoon. (The one which does not provide disposable bags and which is located next to the one that does.)

Well, almost. I actually think they've gone one better.

My route home from work takes me directly past the Bressi Ranch shopping plaza. (No, there was never a ranch there. It's just a clever name.) When I'm commuting by bike, I actually cut straight through the parking lot as a shortcut. In this plaza are two grocery stores. One is Stater Bros, which is a large regional chain sort of like your Krogers. The other is Trader Joe's, which is a smaller chain that has more of a health food theme. They're still a proper commercial supermarket chain, not a hippy-dippy hangout like Whole Foods, they just try to be a tad more highbrow about things. (And frankly, they have a really good selection of cheeses. That's the real reason I started going there in the first place.)



Here in San Diego county, plastic bags are unfortunately still both legal and commonplace, and so Stater Bros, like the other big chains, uses them almost exclusively.

Trader Joe's, by comparison, has no plastic bags at all. They do have paper bags, however they're not the kind you're probably accustomed to (thin paper folded into a flimsy cube). These are more like a bag you'd get at a fancy boutique store at the mall. They're still plain brown, but made of a heavier material, complete with attached handles. And while there's no official rule to this effect, you (the customer) are encouraged and expected to bring the paper bags you used last time back with you when you return, and use them again. And again, and again. The bags are sufficiently robust that you can reasonably expect to get about a dozen or so uses out of them before they wear out and must be recycled. When your bag is worn out, or if you need an extra for a large load, they will happily give them to you for free, however it is clear that you are expected to keep re-using your bags until they wear out. It's part of the social contract.

This actually works out very well. Granted, these days pretty much every grocery store offers you the opportunity to purchase reusable bags at a very low price (around $1, typically), but I think TJ's has really hit on the right formula. By making paper bags that are robust enough to re-use multiple times, and yet cheap enough to give away for free, they encourage people to participate in the scheme with no direct cost to themselves. (Brilliant!)


How has this affected business? Well, the parking in front of Trader Joe's is almost always completely full, and I have never seen more than one checkout stand closed at any given time. How many supermarkets can you say that about?


Of course, the problem is that not everyone everywhere is willing to play by these rules voluntarily. Even here in SoCal, the sort of people who buy their groceries at Target or Ralph's often expect single-use plastic bags to be provided for them, and are too lazy, too stupid, and/or too sociopathic to bother re-using them. And the fact that those markets practically force disposable bags upon you does not help matters. It's probably not reasonable to expect the Trader Joe's model to work in places frequented and run by those whose IQ can be expressed in a six-bit integer, so for them, I see no harm in transforming the social contract into a legal obligation.


Now, I will admit that the LA model of banning paper bags altogether is a tad draconian, but it is LA, after all. You can't take anything they do up there too seriously. Remember, this is the city that brought you American Idol. They're all slightly confused, and they also suck at making fish tacos. (Yes, I'm talking to you, Seņior Maristo, owner of Casa Azul at the corner of Empire Ave & N. Buena Vista St. in Burbank. Try actually visiting Baja once in your lifetime. The white sauce isn't supposed to resemble runny mayonnaise.)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

i am, but i don't want to be associated with them. I'm not a fan of how they present themselves or how they even give a ---- what others believe in; they are hypocritical mean-spirited ******** who force their own believes on others.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

So, on one side, we have crazy athiests doing this. On the other, we have the crazy religious types doing it.

Can we somehow get the crazies from both sides to go away?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

♩that would be the day..that i die. ♬

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

There is a song for everything

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

Churches pay taxes. Bible belt schools stop teaching creationism in biology classes or trying to make it so. Equal rights and gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Never talk of reinstating don't ask don't tell again. Take god off our money. Take god out of the pledge.

This is what my mean spirited, hateful *** wants.

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

I'm curious to know what MT's feelings are on the upcoming election.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

We're all fucked.

It's looking like it's Obama vs. Obama, I mean, Romney. Aka, both sides candidates suck.

I don't see Paul pulling the miracle he needs with the shenanigans going on with Santorum/Gingrich.

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

This is what I wanted to discuss. Ever since Captain Insane-O decided to drop the race our political sections on MT seemed to go dry.

What are the opinions on Romney? Is he really as Obama-esque as you make him out to seem? What happened to Gingrich?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

....Viper, bro.

Obama based his health care bill on Romney's, or so the scuttlebutt on the topic has it.

That's the point for me where it's, "Oh ---- it, we've got two mediocre-at-best assclowns up for election, there's no point in even getting worked up over either being elected."

It's part of the reason why I bet Hustly on whether Obamacare is overturned or not, at least I get lulz from the election season whether I win or lose.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

This mean spirited ------- agrees. I only *** with others when I have a legit reason. Trying to ban the gayz, teaching creationism or calling it science all are legit reasons.

I'm voting for Obammer because of social issues.

That and I don't trust Mormons.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

but one is constitutional, the other isn't.

also:

• every budget of Romney's included tax cuts (in a 85% democratic legislature)
• he balanced the budget, after a $3 billion deficit spending year, and was balanced every year of office and left with a surplus
• he cut OUT corporate tax loopholes.
• he cut taxes nearly $400 million dollars - remember his budget was balanced every year of office and left office with a surplus
• he even gained emergency powers from the democratic legislature to slash gov't spending like crazy to the tune of $600 million dollars
• he voted more bills than any governor in Mass. history.
• he left office with a 2.1billion rainy-day-fund (up from 600 million when he came into office) - this was spent the day he left office, taxes were increased and gov't spending increased as well

this is exactly who we need in Washington. sorry Ospendama.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Three problems.

#1: Romney's health care plan? Half of the budget for it came from the federal government. Yeah, the budgetary arguments wrt Romney only work if China will give us huge amounts of money - the federal gov't doesn't exactly have a higher gov't to go to beg for handouts.
#2: Romney seriously supports the Ryan plan. The Ryan plan. Let me repeat one more time. The Ryan plan, which has been debunked....everywhere.
#3: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...OrYI_blog.html

And yes, I specifically chose a right-leaning source for that, Brainy.

P.S. More important is the idle issue, not this thread bro.
P.P.S. Something is constitutional by default, we'll see what the SC rules. If the SC does rule the way you want, it is going to damage part of Ryan's pet economic plan anyways, lulz.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

so what, states have the rights, federal gov't doesn't. might be a stupid plan, but it's legal.

romney for supreme being.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-xl/?mobile=nc

I'm just going to throw this one out here, Brainy, and let the wolves here devour it.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I would consider this a positive attribute, and yet from the context in which you present it, I infer that you mention this with the intent that it be construed as a condemnation against Romney.

Could you explain to me your reasoning in this?

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full...-about-mormons

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Are you talking about "Romneycare," the state-specific healthcare plan? What does that have to do with China "giv[ing] us huge amounts of money?"

To make sure I am not putting words in your mouth, you are saying that Ezra Klein is a right-leaning author?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Ryan's plan is a load of crap and has been thoroughly debunked by more people than I care to get into on a politics post on a car forum. Suffice to say that all you need to do is a brief google. It's a ridiculously bad plan, and only "works out" financially if you allow Ryan to claim under *his* plan the wars end and are a savings, but under Obama's plan, the wars *never end*.

Republicans whine about class warfare, Obama, and wealth redistribution towards the bottom? Ryan's plan is the same thing, except it involves wealth redistribution towards the top.

Disclaimer: Ryan's plan ridiculously benefits me, but is a terrible idea for the country as a whole. There's only a handful of posters on here that would actually benefit from his plan, the rest seeing substantial penalties - and for a savings of something around $150billion over 10 years or something equally ridiculous. We can save more just by cutting foreign aid to hostile countries then Ryan's plan if you throw out the bullshit in it.

In all seriousness, why do you think Ron Paul hates Ryan's budget plan with a passion? Do you think Paul has no idea how the country works financially?

Because Romneycare only works budgetarily because approximately half of it's budget comes from the federal gov't - Brainy was hyping up Romney's budgetary history. Romney's budgetary history is ****-poor, and involves a lot of federal gov't handouts in reality - Romneycare being a prime example. If you disallow for a higher gov't to give Romney handouts (Unless, of course, you want to claim China or another country will give us money out of the goodness of their heart), his budgetary history is terrible.

You want someone with a good budget record? Get Paul. Romney shouldn't even be 10 feet near anything about a budgetary history, Paul is the only candidate, including Obama, that actually has a clue about fiscal responsibility.

No, I'm saying that the WaPo is a right-leaning source, and even advertises it as such. Even the WaPo themselves admit they went to the right specifically for market reasons.

It's the same as the NYT has been steadily moving to the right since Murdoch bought them, they used to be ultra-hard left, but have been steadily moving more right.

Shorthand: I would not expect a source's editors that is on the right to publish an article that is factually incorrect if it supports the left. Or, as Brainy has tried to argue in the past, facts are facts. And in this particular case, the facts support the left significantly.