the best: http://vimeo.com/5048966

11/30/2011 10:08:04 PM

This thread makes me weep for the fate of humanity.

11/30/2011 10:28:58 PM

OBAMA IS RUININ 'MERICA!!!!11

11/30/2011 10:30:55 PM

Goodnight, sweet prince...

11/30/2011 10:47:55 PM

Wait, is there some sort of lack of demand for christmas trees? Even for real ones. Really? A commission or more than 2 guys and a spare 40 minutes could come up with adequate "strategies" and such. Christmas tree auto water-er, or a device that floats in your tree water and beeps annoyingly when it touches the bottom, or something. Christmas tree water mix to keep them alive longer. See that wasn't hard.

11/30/2011 11:29:29 PM

There's a lot of good work here, but settledown won this thread like ten times in a row.

Thank goodness for face.

11/30/2011 11:55:27 PM

^^Yeah, that's kind of my whole "WTF" about this thing as well. Like I said before, I'd love to see what metrics were used to prove that there was a real need to stand up a board to help the image of the Christmas tree.

Quote :

"And nc state isn't funded by the gov't? Get off your high horse and smell the daisies."

NC State is a state-funded university that was set up through a land grant which authorized investments in state agricultural and technological development in the 1880s. So in other words by sending money to NC State, there is no special government entity, certainly not a federal government entity that.... you know, nevermind. Just... nevermind.

12/1/2011 12:36:38 AM

Quote :

"Wait, is there some sort of lack of demand for christmas trees? Even for real ones. Really?"

Maybe not, but I guess they wanted to sell more of them. There's no lack of iPads but they still advertise them.

Quote :

"Christmas tree auto water-er, or a device that floats in your tree water and beeps annoyingly when it touches the bottom, or something."

That's not really the kind of research they do. I think it's more like plant genetics usually.

Quote :

"I'd love to see what metrics were used to prove that there was a real need to stand up a board to help the image of the Christmas tree."

Christmas tree farmers decided there was, that's it. There don't have to be any metrics.

Quote :

"So in other words by sending money to NC State, there is no special government entity, certainly not a federal government entity that.... you know, nevermind. Just... nevermind. "

The special government entity in question is a group of Christmas tree farmers, like the ones who decided to do this, that operates under the already-existing USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. There's not a Bureau of Christmas Trees now.

[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 12:48 AM. Reason : quote]

12/1/2011 12:47:58 AM

WHAT WILL THEY TAX NEXT??? BABY JESUS HIMSELF??? IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE

12/1/2011 10:02:46 AM

I just think he's just trying to oversimplify something that's actually been researched, agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of the parties involved, and is actually non-oppressive.

Lots of people have already made up their minds that EVERYTHING the president does is in poor taste and has some underlying malevolence. It's like he wakes up and makes impulse decisions just because he feels like it.

/soapbox

12/1/2011 10:11:21 AM

I see well-formed arguments on both sides, surrounded by a bunch of dribble spewing.

12/1/2011 10:21:54 AM

Quote :

"There's not a Bureau of Christmas Trees now."

But the mental image of one is pretty funny.

12/1/2011 10:31:21 AM

Because since a lot of parties agree with it and it's been around a long time means that it's obviously a good system and being used responsibly. I mean, when have we ever known an establish government process to every be corrupt, inadiquate, or deemed unappropriate at a later date?



I'm going to make sure to use that argument next time people get into a legalization argument. "Well, we've had pot illegal for a long time now so obviously the argument is over." Hell, I should have brought up this argument when the healthcare thing was going on. "Well, healthcare has gone on like this in the US for a while now so we probably should just agree that it's alright and end this whole debate."

Didn't a majority of Americans prior to the civil war actually oppose the federal government abolishing slavery? Not comparing Christmas trees to slavery, but the idea that the public feel one way and the government approving of something for years and years still applies. Guess Lincoln really botched that one up.

This is probably something that should have been posted in Soapbox.

12/1/2011 10:59:29 AM

YOU ARE RIGHT, THESE FARMERS MIGHT AS WELL BE SLAVEOWNERS

WHO THE FUCK DO THEY THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO ADVERTISE THEIR PRODUCT

WHAT IS THIS, NAZI GERMANY?

12/1/2011 11:14:29 AM

[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 11:17 AM. Reason : note that the tree in the pic is artificial!!!!]

12/1/2011 11:17:22 AM

Quote :

"I mean, when have we ever known an establish government process to every be corrupt, inadiquate, or deemed unappropriate at a later date?"

It's worked well for eggs, pork, beef, and dairy.

12/1/2011 11:21:25 AM

Time to settledown, settledown. Way to take a statement out of context.

Quote :

"It's worked well for eggs, pork, beef, and dairy."

All of which are essential food products that contribute to our food supply. Christmas trees? My thinks this is a stretch.

If pot is legalized, could pot growers get together and have the government collect funds to sponsor advertising campaigns to improve the image of pot? Good grief, I said a long time ago that I can see how this law would be important for some facets of agriculture, especially with how tight money already is, but I just think using it for government involvement in advancing the cause of Christmas trees is... probably a stretch of what is necessary.

...on that note, all gif images and arguments about "It's always been this way!" aside, this whole thing was started because of some notion that Christmas trees had a damaged image. I still haven't seen anyone suggest exactly what metric was used to rationalize that statement. They're fucking Christmas trees. Did they do a straw poll in New York City and have people respond, "Christmas trees?! FUCK NO! You're evil and horrible. I'm getting me an environmentally friendly tree produced with polymers and coal from Target. That'll be better for mother earth."?

[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 11:27 AM. Reason : ..]

12/1/2011 11:22:05 AM

i am disappointed in settledown's behavior itt

[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 11:23 AM. Reason : .]

12/1/2011 11:22:57 AM

Quote :

"As demographics and buying habits have changed, we have watched the market for real trees shrink drastically, requiring us to spend much more time and money on promotion"

I know a lot of people that moved to artificial trees because the real ones were ridiculously overpriced... maybe that's why the market shrank.

Quote :

"There's nothing religious about a tree it's a pagan symbol misrepresenting the religious holiday"

Yeah, I kinda don't get the argument. It may or may not have its origins in some sort of pagan rite or whatever (probably not in the case of the Christmas tree) but somewhere in the last 400 years the symbol shifted. When people see a Christmas tree they don't think of the pagan roots of the holiday, they think of Christmas. Same with the people that go after Halloween. I don't associate Halloween with demon worship or whatever, I associate it with kids (and more and more teens these days) putting on costumes and trick-or-treating.

[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM. Reason : -]

12/1/2011 11:24:24 AM

BAWWWWW THAT NEGRO PRESIDENT IS TAXING GOD FEARING WHITE FOLKS ON THE OCCASION WHEN WE CELEBRATE THE BURTH OF WHITE JESUS WITH EVERGREEN TREES AND IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT

12/1/2011 11:27:14 AM

^Barking up the wrong tree, buddy. I've been defending some of Obama's better ideas for a long time. Think doesn't even have anything to do with Obama (maybe it does to the Heritage Foundation, but not me).

settledown, man. settledown.

12/1/2011 11:29:04 AM

pryderi exposed

12/1/2011 11:29:31 AM

KEEP YOUR NIGGER TAX AWAY FROM MY JESUS TREE

12/1/2011 11:32:40 AM

i concede to your trolls.

truly you are the puppet master.

12/1/2011 11:35:25 AM

^second.

12/1/2011 11:35:54 AM

chit

chat

12/1/2011 11:38:40 AM

At some point in time saying "chit chat" after trolling is like calling someone a 'fucking retard', but saying it's okay because you followed it with "bless their heart".

12/1/2011 11:41:24 AM

at some point you'll understand that calling this a tax is intellectually dishonest and shut the fuck up

or not because you're a racist poor paradoxically conservative shitstain jingoist

12/1/2011 11:44:29 AM

photos/00523193.jpg

12/1/2011 11:49:15 AM

i'd hit it

12/1/2011 11:50:26 AM

^^^At some point in time you'll figure out that your response shows how little you've actually paid attention to anything in this thread, at least that I've said, and you're just trolling for the sake of trolling. Then again, I guess you said it: chit chat.

Troll on, brother.

12/1/2011 11:52:20 AM

step 1: skim opponent's argument*
step 2: insert extremist opinions into parts you didn't comprehend
step 3: argue based on your inaccurate assessment

*bonus points: don't read argument at all, and just assume it's the exact opposite of what you personally believe

this is how we get things done in america

12/1/2011 12:12:31 PM

you forgot step 4 where you make an argument about something without even knowing what you're arguing about. Americans excel at that skill.

12/1/2011 12:18:17 PM

do you really expect everyone to know every detail of how USDA marketing works? that is the point of discussion. rather than say "YOU'RE DUMB FOR THINKING X", why don't you fill in the blanks and contribute to our collective intelligence?

don't assume everyone is out to preach. i always welcome corrections.

[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 12:23 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2011 12:21:08 PM

EXACTLY!!!

No other explanation is needed. If you automatically discount someone's opinion on a issue because they don't know every facet of an argument, I don't know how you expect there to be discourse.

[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 12:29 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2011 12:25:37 PM

Quote :

"why don't you fill in the blanks and contribute to our collective intelligence?"

ActionPants has done that several times in this thread. I'm not really sure how he could break it down any further.

12/1/2011 12:28:38 PM

Yeah... he added information. It was heard, questioned, found to be right (I even admitted it was new information to me), then I explained that I still stood by my argument. What the Hell is so unreasonable about hearing new information and simply rejecting that the status quo is always right?

What a way to encourage cultural and legal progress in our society.

12/1/2011 12:31:09 PM

Quote :

"ActionPants has done that several times in this thread. I'm not really sure how he could break it down any further."

Yep, he's the only one on the "pro" side that gave reasoned arguments, and I thanked him for it earlier.

Your statement "I need to stop clicking on this thread. It makes me sad for the state of politics these days" makes me question whether you read and comprehended the opposing arguments.

[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2011 12:33:50 PM

Quote :

"WHAT WILL THEY TAX NEXT??? BABY JESUS HIMSELF??? IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE"

Quote :

"YOU ARE RIGHT, THESE FARMERS MIGHT AS WELL BE SLAVEOWNERS WHO THE FUCK DO THEY THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO ADVERTISE THEIR PRODUCT WHAT IS THIS, NAZI GERMANY?"

Quote :

"KEEP YOUR NIGGER TAX AWAY FROM MY JESUS TREE"

I like this game...

POOR KRISMUS TREE FARMERS...THEY CANT SELL NO TREES. BETTER RAISE SOME MONEY FOR EM, PUT SOME OF THEM TELEVISHUN DOO-DADS ON, SO THEM UNDECIDEDS WILL BUY A REEEAAALL TREE

12/1/2011 12:40:46 PM

Good thing I have a fake one.

12/1/2011 12:51:26 PM

Quote :

"Yep, he's the only one on the "pro" side that gave reasoned arguments, and I thanked him for it earlier. "

There were several others as well but that's okay. I mean you're essentially rabbling because people are posting in a Chit Chat thread like it's a Chit Chat thread. If you want a 100% serious debate on this topic, why not form a panel discussion over in CALS? I actually think it'd be really interesting to hear a panel that actually has direct experience with agricultural marketing debate the merits of USDA managed advertising campaigns. But from people that don't have any experience in the topic, their only argument seems to be they're pissed the farmers want the USDA to execute their campaign rather than a PR company. I wonder if these same people were up in arms over The Incredible Edible Egg or Beef, It's What's For Dinner.

12/1/2011 12:55:37 PM

I'd like to think that that face was trolling here...but we all know that isn't really true.

He really believes this shit

12/1/2011 12:55:55 PM

^^I hate it when people with no real inside information try passing judgement on things that they are not classically trained in.

12/1/2011 1:16:19 PM

If members of Congress would actually research laws they're voting on, or hell even bothered to read the laws, we probably wouldn't have nearly as much idiocy inside that building.

12/1/2011 1:30:42 PM

basically all i'm reading is WHY IS THERE CHIT CHAT IN MY CHIT CHAT

12/1/2011 1:31:26 PM

^^Completely agree. The connection I'm making between that and this thread is that the "idiocy" in DC is what passed the legislation that allows for these "common" practices that this thread are about. That's why, even though it's been explained that this is perfectly common place, I don't accept that it makes any sense or is right. Why that is so hard to grasp, I'll never know.

12/1/2011 1:39:42 PM

Quote :

"All of which are essential food products that contribute to our food supply. Christmas trees? My thinks this is a stretch."

so because we don't eat christmas trees, thy don't deserve the same free market rights as other commodities we do eat?


thats somethingist

12/1/2011 3:04:26 PM

It's not just a matter of being common place, it's an effective system. It's not like the USDA is going hog wild with money collected from farmers for these campaigns. I suppose one could argue that an NGO could step in to take the place of what the USDA is doing, but I'm not sure I see the point. These campaigns, unless I'm mistaken, are self-funded by the farmers and aren't using government dollars. Even if the USDA one day stopped the campaigns for beef, pork, etc, it's not like they would cease to exist. There are things the USDA does (or does not) do that I'm not too keen on, but this is not one of them.

12/1/2011 3:05:32 PM

Quote :

"These campaigns, unless I'm mistaken, are self-funded by the farmers and aren't using government dollars. "

Generally speaking, any government tasking (federal) has overhead of approximately 110%. That's just the general number used by most programs. Any time I see that the Federal Government is taking a tasking upon itself, whether funded directly by the farmers or not, I know that 110% is going to come out of their congressional allotment, i.e. tax dollars.

If it's corn, which is an essential food product, needs help (which I know corn doesn't need help, but it's just an example), then that seems reasonable. If it's pork that needs help, then similarly that seems reasonable. I don't see, nor has anyone been able to produce, the rationale behind why the federal government should use USDA policies to get involved in anything with the Christmas tree farmers. That 110% operating overhead is coming from the budget and being spent on collecting and disbursing money from Christmas tree farmers when it could likely be used on something.... more essential to our food supply or intrastructure.

12/2/2011 10:04:42 AM

I'd like to see a source for your 110%.

12/2/2011 10:14:15 AM