Comments on: David Vitter Wants You to Eat Raw Oysters and DIE

By: DJViCiOUS

DJViCiOUS — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:49:20 +0000

Too Funny. Here with the economy like it is, and our country at war over seas, and instead of CREATING NEW "NON-GOVERNMENTAL JOBS" there are people actively trying to kill jobs that have been in place for generations.

We have problems with EVERY FOOD SOURCE IN EVERY INDUSTRY, so is this what we are going to do?? Just kill that source and it fixes the problem?

Why not fix the real problem here, it's not the Oyster, it's the damn big corporations that dump their waste in the air, in the ground AND IN VARIOUS WATER SOURCES!!!

Yeah, my Great Grandfather is rolling over in his grave, he was the Capt. of a Deep Sea Fishing Boat, a 5 mass schooner to be exact and debuted in National Geographic in the 1940's. So YES, the seafood industry is somethng that hits the core of my roots, and there is always someone that wants to do away with it.

TEDS is a perfect example. WHAT A JOKE! If you EVER worked on a Shrimp Boat for any length of time, you it would be obvious that this was just some one full of themselves with this crap that was passed into law.

Gill Nets DO NOT kill Oyster beds, but they blamed Gill Nets in the local bays, and sounds on the fish drying up. Yeah, they claimed the fish were almost completely gone from the bay because of Gill Nets (2000 ft length max, 20 ft depth max, 2 3/4" mesh min). And once the Gill Nets were banned, guess what, the fish stayed gone along with all the dead oyster beds. FINALLY, the EPA did their job and traced POLLUTION from the OBVIOUS COMMERICAL SOURCES ON OR NEAR BY THE BAY. Nice thing about Sceince is that it can break down the chemicals and trace them to the exact source. Gulf Power was one culprit, but NO ONE CLOSED THEM DOWN! GO FIGURE! I guess that means there is more to be worked out than just closing them down, huh?

Some of you environmentalists need do some soul searching, and get a clue. WORK THE PROBLEM OUT WHERE THE PROBLEM ORIGINATES, not where it it shows up as an END RESULT.

Just my NOT SO HUMBLE OPINION......

R
Panama City Beach, FL.

By: David Vitter’s Continuing Obsession with Boobs

David Vitter’s Continuing Obsession with Boobs — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:08:19 +0000

[...] by Joseph on December 2, 2009 · View commentsComments Last month David Vitter fought the FDA ban on raw oysters. [...]

By: cubb

cubb — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:31:05 +0000

I think Sen. Vitter's intent is clear, and consistent with the over-arching views of his party. Eat oysters. Die. One less person eligible to be covered by Universal Health Care. The loyal opposition – resolving the question of majority one death at a time!

By: cubb

cubb — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:31:05 +0000

By: jennienbr

jennienbr — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:30:05 +0000

Thank you so much for stating this!! My father died from eating raw oysters on October 15, 2007. This is absurd that anyone would fight against what FDA is doing to protect consumers. I don't want anyone else to suffer with vibrio and flesh eating bacteria that killed my father. All he did was eat oysters for his birthday dinner.

By: Lucie

Lucie — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:11:19 +0000

Maybe he puts the purported aphrodisiac qualities of raw oysters ahead of any fatal consequences. I still remember his wife having to stand by him (in a weird leopard print) after his hooker incident, so I am guessing he is not great at prioritizing.

By: Tudorman

Tudorman — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:37:56 +0000

First I'll point out that the article you reference states that about fifty people get sick and only about 10 (I found 15 in another article) die yearly from the consumption of raw oysters. Should that be the threshold for regulation to “protect” us? If so, why the hell are cigarettes still sold in this country? For that matter, the CDC states that 53 people a year die from using ladders. Where's the ban? Fireplaces kill 40 people every year. Let's make everybody rip theirs out.

This ban is silly. Quit treating adults like children. And I don't know much about Vitter (and don't care to) other than he's simply doing what he's been mandated to do – protect the interests of his constituents. Faulting him for that is failing to see the inherent contradiction in the system.

By: jayzeeMN

jayzeeMN — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:02:32 +0000

Thanks to science we now have a substitute that offers the same benefit as eating raw oysters without the dangerous bacteria – it's called Viagra. Never again will we have to risk our lives by eating potentially deadly seafood just to “get it up”. I'm sure David Vitter has heard of Viagra.

Maybe he's just old school…

By: Joseph

Joseph — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:57:19 +0000

You make a good point, Tudorman. And, to be honest, I'm not a fan of randomly banning things. But the FDA has a mandate to protect our nation's food supply and they have already been hindered enough in this undertaking by not having the ability to regulate meat and poultry (which is a whole different topic that I won't go on a rant about right now).

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the ban itself. But I do have a serious problem with Vitter's legislation because it is intended to prevent the FDA from doing the job they are required to do.

Imagine if it was a different agency?

For example if Vitter introduced a bill preventing the FBI from arresting anyone in Louisiana right after the Bureau announced they were planning to break up a big drug ring in Baton Rouge.

By: Tudorman

Tudorman — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:46:13 +0000

Well, the harmful substance I was referring (reefering?) to was pot, and yes, I agree with your view on the WoD. But since you brought it up, I'll point out the inconsistency of your point regarding cigarettes, namely that if the bans are not about protecting the smokers themselves, as you contend, why should folks be banned from eating raw oysters? Seems to me the only potential harm is to themselves. Or are we to worry about second-hand spittle from the oyster eater at the next table?