General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,744
Default OT California


"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/25/2015 12:24 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 5/24/2015 11:27 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Sounds like you need balance.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like we need to stop selling ourselves down the river for short
>>>> term
>>>> profits.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm going to pick up a half gallon jar of almond butter tomorrow. Good
>>> stuff.

>>
>> You would. But I was referring to Wall Street greed. There is no such
>> thing as balance when they stick their proboscis into anything that even
>> smells a little of money.
>>

>
> You still have to go back to the roots. Is California better off with or
> without almonds? Forget Wall Street, the answer is either yes or no.


Not the point I was making.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,851
Default OT California

On 5/25/2015 12:52 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 5/25/2015 12:24 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 5/24/2015 11:27 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like you need balance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like we need to stop selling ourselves down the river for short
>>>>> term
>>>>> profits.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to pick up a half gallon jar of almond butter tomorrow. Good
>>>> stuff.
>>>
>>> You would. But I was referring to Wall Street greed. There is no such
>>> thing as balance when they stick their proboscis into anything that even
>>> smells a little of money.
>>>

>>
>> You still have to go back to the roots. Is California better off with or
>> without almonds? Forget Wall Street, the answer is either yes or no.

>
> Not the point I was making.
>
>


But the answer is important in deciding the fate of water distribution
and almond growers. And to determine if you are being sold down the
river or made better.

Is there a yes or no?

  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,744
Default OT California


"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/25/2015 12:52 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 5/25/2015 12:24 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 5/24/2015 11:27 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like you need balance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like we need to stop selling ourselves down the river for
>>>>>> short
>>>>>> term
>>>>>> profits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to pick up a half gallon jar of almond butter tomorrow.
>>>>> Good
>>>>> stuff.
>>>>
>>>> You would. But I was referring to Wall Street greed. There is no such
>>>> thing as balance when they stick their proboscis into anything that
>>>> even
>>>> smells a little of money.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You still have to go back to the roots. Is California better off with
>>> or
>>> without almonds? Forget Wall Street, the answer is either yes or no.

>>
>> Not the point I was making.
>>
>>

>
> But the answer is important in deciding the fate of water distribution and
> almond growers. And to determine if you are being sold down the river or
> made better.
>
> Is there a yes or no?


Wall Street has been buying up orchards and massively over planting new
trees during a drought so as to satisfy Chinese demand and reap higher
rewards for investors. That makes the problem much worse if you are on trhe
side of we need to conserve water if we are going to get through this..

So are we better off? Depends on who you are I suppose.

>




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,851
Default OT California

On 5/25/2015 8:37 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 5/25/2015 12:52 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 5/25/2015 12:24 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 5/24/2015 11:27 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like you need balance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like we need to stop selling ourselves down the river for
>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>> term
>>>>>>> profits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to pick up a half gallon jar of almond butter tomorrow.
>>>>>> Good
>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would. But I was referring to Wall Street greed. There is no such
>>>>> thing as balance when they stick their proboscis into anything that
>>>>> even
>>>>> smells a little of money.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You still have to go back to the roots. Is California better off with
>>>> or
>>>> without almonds? Forget Wall Street, the answer is either yes or no.
>>>
>>> Not the point I was making.
>>>
>>>

>>
>> But the answer is important in deciding the fate of water distribution and
>> almond growers. And to determine if you are being sold down the river or
>> made better.
>>
>> Is there a yes or no?

>
> Wall Street has been buying up orchards and massively over planting new
> trees during a drought so as to satisfy Chinese demand and reap higher
> rewards for investors. That makes the problem much worse if you are on trhe
> side of we need to conserve water if we are going to get through this..
>
> So are we better off? Depends on who you are I suppose.
>


At this stage, adding more planting would seem to be the wrong thing to
do. But cutting back production may be very costly in other areas.

  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,744
Default OT California


"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/25/2015 8:37 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 5/25/2015 12:52 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 5/25/2015 12:24 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On 5/24/2015 11:27 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like you need balance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like we need to stop selling ourselves down the river for
>>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>>> term
>>>>>>>> profits.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm going to pick up a half gallon jar of almond butter tomorrow.
>>>>>>> Good
>>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You would. But I was referring to Wall Street greed. There is no
>>>>>> such
>>>>>> thing as balance when they stick their proboscis into anything that
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> smells a little of money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You still have to go back to the roots. Is California better off with
>>>>> or
>>>>> without almonds? Forget Wall Street, the answer is either yes or no.
>>>>
>>>> Not the point I was making.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the answer is important in deciding the fate of water distribution
>>> and
>>> almond growers. And to determine if you are being sold down the river or
>>> made better.
>>>
>>> Is there a yes or no?

>>
>> Wall Street has been buying up orchards and massively over planting new
>> trees during a drought so as to satisfy Chinese demand and reap higher
>> rewards for investors. That makes the problem much worse if you are on
>> trhe
>> side of we need to conserve water if we are going to get through this..
>>
>> So are we better off? Depends on who you are I suppose.
>>

>
> At this stage, adding more planting would seem to be the wrong thing to
> do. But cutting back production may be very costly in other areas.


You have to understand the immense power these growers have in this state.
It is as if Wall Street dictates to the government how we handle this and of
course they get preferential treatment. So the outcome is not what is best
for the state it is what is best for some a-hole billionaire. As always.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default OT California

On Mon, 25 May 2015 09:35:41 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>> On 5/25/2015 8:37 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Wall Street has been buying up orchards and massively over planting new
>>> trees during a drought so as to satisfy Chinese demand and reap higher
>>> rewards for investors. That makes the problem much worse if you are on
>>> trhe
>>> side of we need to conserve water if we are going to get through this..
>>>
>>> So are we better off? Depends on who you are I suppose.
>>>

>>
>> At this stage, adding more planting would seem to be the wrong thing to
>> do. But cutting back production may be very costly in other areas.

>
>You have to understand the immense power these growers have in this state.
>It is as if Wall Street dictates to the government how we handle this and of
>course they get preferential treatment.


As if? Wall Street *is* your government.

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 866
Default OT California

On 5/24/2015 10:52 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 5/25/2015 12:24 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 5/24/2015 11:27 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like you need balance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like we need to stop selling ourselves down the river for short
>>>>> term
>>>>> profits.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to pick up a half gallon jar of almond butter tomorrow. Good
>>>> stuff.
>>>
>>> You would. But I was referring to Wall Street greed. There is no such
>>> thing as balance when they stick their proboscis into anything that even
>>> smells a little of money.
>>>

>>
>> You still have to go back to the roots. Is California better off with or
>> without almonds? Forget Wall Street, the answer is either yes or no.

>
> Not the point I was making.


You don't have a "point" pinko - you're a damnable worthless
anti-capitalist scumbag!

**** off and DIE!

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
California Dave Smith[_1_] General Cooking 13 17-09-2015 07:09 PM
Why don't we all live in California? gloria p Preserving 1 15-05-2015 01:21 PM
California Quesadillas Edoc Recipes (moderated) 0 13-07-2005 03:52 AM
California winery needs help! Dale Williams Wine 0 07-10-2004 08:58 PM
California winery needs help! Art Sushi 1 07-10-2004 05:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"